"Questions for Jehovah Witnesses"

[Woodrow]

Peace to all JW members,

I realize there are very few adherents of JW beliefs present as members and any answers would most likely be the personal opinions of just a few people. Most of us here have very little knowledge of JWs and do not understand how they differ from other groups that call themselves Christian. I do realize that JWs do differ very much from the other denominations to such a large degree that many who call themselves Christian do not consider JWs to be Christians.

In hopes of understanding, My first 5 questions?

1. What do you believe Angels to be?

2. Who is Jesus(as)?

3. Is the Bible the word of God(swt)?

4. Are there errors in the KJV?

5. Are Roman Catholics Christians?

[Grace Seeker]

6. Are there errors in the New World Translation?

7. Would you consider either Charles Taze Russell or Joseph Franklin Rutherford to be a prophet?

8. According to JW teachings, what was God's first creation?

9. JWs reject the creeds of historical Christian orthodoxy which describe God existing in Trinity as not biblical in origin. What then do JWs suggest is the supposed origin of this doctrine? To whom would it be traced back?

10. Can an impersonal force grieve, be blasphemed, lied to, insulted, or outraged?

[Hiroshi]

Peace to all JW members,

I realize there are very few adherents of JW beliefs present as members and any answers would most likely be the personal opinions of just a few people. Most of us here have very little knowledge of JWs and do not understand how they differ from other groups that call themselves Christian. I do realize that JWs do differ very much from the other denominations to such a large degree that many who call themselves Christian do not consider JWs to be Christians.

In hopes of understanding, My first 5 questions?

1. What do you believe Angels to be?

2. Who is Jesus(as)?

3. Is the Bible the word of God(swt)?

4. Are there errors in the KJV?

5. Are Roman Catholics Christians?

Hi Woodrow. You are keeping an old man very busy here ;).

Angels are spirit beings that God has created. They have free will. Most have always remained faithful to God but some rebelled and joined Satan to become the demons.

Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15. So he is the first created being. He existed in heaven with God before coming to earth by being born through Mary. The Bible repeatedly calls Jesus (and some others) "Son of God".

The Bible is the word of God.

There are errors in the KJV.

And Roman Catholics are not Christians (but they would likely say the same about me).

[Hiroshi]

6. Are there errors in the New World Translation?

7. Would you consider either Charles Taze Russell or Joseph Franklin Rutherford to be a prophet?

8. According to JW teachings, what was God's first creation?

9. JWs reject the creeds of historical Christian orthodoxy which describe God existing in Trinity as not biblical in origin. What then do JWs suggest is the supposed origin of this doctrine? To whom would it be traced back?

10. Can an impersonal force grieve, be blasphemed, lied to, insulted, or outraged?

Hi Grace Seeker. Here we are at last discussing Bible doctrines.

6. I believe that the NWT is the most accurate translation available today. If you want to point to an alleged "error" then we can examine it.

7. Russell and Rutherford were not prophets of God.

8. As I told Woodrow, the Bible testifies that Jesus was the first of God's creative works.

Proverbs 8:22 says: "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."
Revelation 3:14 says: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."
And Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

9. There are trinities of gods in many ancient cultures. Hindus believed in Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva. Egyptians believed in Isis, Horus and Osiris. Babylonians even had trinities of demons.

The Greek philosopher Plato greatly admired the Egyptian religious system and went to great lengths to describe the three-in-one deity that they worshiped using the pseudo-science terminology of Greek philosophy. Then, in the early centuries of Christianity, Greek philosophy became widely accepted and very fashionable. And the early Christian theologians used the same ideas of "essences" and "substances" to describe the relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Plato had used for the Egyptian deities. So I believe that their is a link between the trinities of the ancient civilizations and the trinity taught by the churches today.

10. The holy spirit is personified in the NT and spoken of as if it was reacting as a person. Since the spirit represents God, something like lying to the spirit is the same as lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). But this kind of figure of speech is common in the NT. Wisdom is also personified (Matthew 11:19) as is death (Romans 5:14; Revelation 6:8).

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace Seeker. Here we are at last discussing Bible doctrines.

6. I believe that the NWT is the most accurate translation available today. If you want to point to an alleged "error" then we can examine it.

Oh, you know THE WORD I want to examine without me even mentioning it. ("THE" pun definitely intended.) But I don't think there is any point bothering. People from both of our divergent viewpoints have gone over it countless times with each other to no avail. So, I doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion.


BTW, I think you're putting the wrong interpretation to πρωτοτοκος (prototokos).

For instance when I say the chili is "hot", I could mean more than one thing by the term "hot". The same is true for πρωτοτοκος in Colossians 1:15. Notice how it is also used of Jesus in Colossian 1:18 as being the firstborn from the dead. Yet we know that in a chronological sense that Lazarus and many others were raised from the dead prior to Jesus experiencing that. So, I would argue that as it can't be meant as a chronological measurement in 1:18, that it likewise is not meant that way in 1:15. So, in what other sense might it be that Jesus is (present tense) the first from the dead? When you find the answer to that, I think you will find that it also applies equally in that same sense to 1:15. Hint: the answer is elsewhere in the same passage.

[Woodrow]

Hi Woodrow. You are keeping an old man very busy here ;).

Angels are spirit beings that God has created. They have free will. Most have always remained faithful to God but some rebelled and joined Satan to become the demons.

Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15. So he is the first created being. He existed in heaven with God before coming to earth by being born through Mary. The Bible repeatedly calls Jesus (and some others) "Son of God".

The Bible is the word of God.

There are errors in the KJV.

And Roman Catholics are not Christians (but they would likely say the same about me).

Thank You for you replies Hiroshi. I did ask for clarification of your beliefs and that is what you provided. We do differ considerably in these views, but I am not seeking a debate in this thread. At this moment my goal is simply the learning of where we do differ. Since it is obvious we will have differences, let us at least know where the differences are and not where we think the differences are.

Some more questions:

Jehovah Witnesses seem to be a recent religion coming as an off shoot of the Bible Tract Society of the late 1800s.

When do JWs believe Jehovah Witnesses Originated?

How strong is the obligation for JW members to bring in converts?

Do you believe Humans are created to have immortal life, even after the destruction of the physical body?

[YusufNoor]

Hi Grace Seeker. Here we are at last discussing Bible doctrines.

6. I believe that the NWT is the most accurate translation available today. If you want to point to an alleged "error" then we can examine it.

7. Russell and Rutherford were not prophets of God.

8. As I told Woodrow, the Bible testifies that Jesus was the first of God's creative works.

Proverbs 8:22 says: "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."
Revelation 3:14 says: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."
And Colossians 1:15 says: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

9. There are trinities of gods in many ancient cultures. Hindus believed in Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva. Egyptians believed in Isis, Horus and Osiris. Babylonians even had trinities of demons.

The Greek philosopher Plato greatly admired the Egyptian religious system and went to great lengths to describe the three-in-one deity that they worshiped using the pseudo-science terminology of Greek philosophy. Then, in the early centuries of Christianity, Greek philosophy became widely accepted and very fashionable. And the early Christian theologians used the same ideas of "essences" and "substances" to describe the relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Plato had used for the Egyptian deities. So I believe that their is a link between the trinities of the ancient civilizations and the trinity taught by the churches today.

10. The holy spirit is personified in the NT and spoken of as if it was reacting as a person. Since the spirit represents God, something like lying to the spirit is the same as lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). But this kind of figure of speech is common in the NT. Wisdom is also personified (Matthew 11:19) as is death (Romans 5:14; Revelation 6:8).

Peace Hiroshi,

i found this particular remark fascinating:

The Greek philosopher Plato greatly admired the Egyptian religious system and went to great lengths to describe the three-in-one deity that they worshiped using the pseudo-science terminology of Greek philosophy. Then, in the early centuries of Christianity, Greek philosophy became widely accepted and very fashionable. And the early Christian theologians used the same ideas of "essences" and "substances" to describe the relationships of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Plato had used for the Egyptian deities. So I believe that their is a link between the trinities of the ancient civilizations and the trinity taught by the churches today.

wasn't there a "word" used by Plato and other early Greek Philosophers used to describe the "part/portion/essence of God" that deals within the creation?

do any of the NT writers appear to use this EXACT SAME "word" to describe a "part/portion/essence of God" which he believes is Jesus?

you ascribe the "early centuries of Christianity" as the time that Greek philosophy became widely accepted and very fashionable. perhaps you misspoke here, following the conquests by Alexander marked th beginning of the time that Greek philosophy became widely accepted and very fashionable. isn't there evidence that Philo [OF Alexandria!] corrupted Jewish teachings to include the VERY SAME "word" used by Pagan Philosophers?

i also see this:

Oh, you know THE WORD I want to examine without me even mentioning it. ("THE" pun definitely intended.) But I don't think there is any point bothering. People from both of our divergent viewpoints have gone over it countless times with each other to no avail. So, I doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion.

why did you ask the question if you "doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion"????

i also notice that you keep using the name Jehovah, even though you KNOW that it is NOT the name of God, seen here:

Proverbs 8:22 says: "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."
Revelation 3:14 says: "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God."

does this not imply that the Jehovah that you worship isn't God after all?

if you truly served the One True God, wouldn't you KNOW His NAME?

peace

[Hiroshi]

Peace Hiroshi,

i found this particular remark fascinating:



wasn't there a "word" used by Plato and other early Greek Philosophers used to describe the "part/portion/essence of God" that deals within the creation?

do any of the NT writers appear to use this EXACT SAME "word" to describe a "part/portion/essence of God" which he believes is Jesus?

I need to refresh my memory and research this.

But in the meantime please check this out:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_04.htm

Quote:

"The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

[Predator]

11 Do you believe he spoke in the cradle to defend his mother against the Jews who suspected her of committing adultery ?

12. Do Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus made birds of Clay and breath life into them as mentioned in the Quran and the Gospel of Thomas ?

[Woodrow]

Peace Hiroshi,

Sorry to make another old man work so hard. But a few more questions came to mind:

Is Jesus(as) superior to the Angels, in your opinion?

Why were Angels created?

Where do the angels reside?

What are demons and where do they reside?

[Hiroshi]

Oh, you know THE WORD I want to examine without me even mentioning it. ("THE" pun definitely intended.) But I don't think there is any point bothering. People from both of our divergent viewpoints have gone over it countless times with each other to no avail. So, I doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion.

The NWT has been heavily criticized (and chastised!) for it's rendering of John 1:1 "and the Word was a god." But it was not the first Bible translation to read this way. Around 1,700 years ago John's gospel was translated into Coptic and in that language it reads: "And a god was the word".

Please see this link:
http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/200...years-ago.html

[Hiroshi]

11 Do you believe he spoke in the cradle to defend his mother against the Jews who suspected her of committing adultery ?

12. Do Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus made birds of Clay and breath life into them as mentioned in the Quran and the Gospel of Thomas ?

I've got a problem there because John 2:11 says that the first miracle that Jesus performed was when he was an adult at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. So either these accounts of earlier miracles are wrong or John's gospel is wrong.

[Hiroshi]

why did you ask the question if you "doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion"????

I didn't say that. Grace Seeker did. Just a joke I think.

i also notice that you keep using the name Jehovah, even though you KNOW that it is NOT the name of God, seen here:




does this not imply that the Jehovah that you worship isn't God after all?

if you truly served the One True God, wouldn't you KNOW His NAME?

peace

Why do you say that I "know" that Jehovah is not God's name? It is God's name.

[Woodrow]

I've got a problem there because John 2:11 says that the first miracle that Jesus performed was when he was an adult at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. So either these accounts of earlier miracles are wrong or John's gospel is wrong.

If memory serves me correct that miracle in the Bible was done at the request of his Mother. Does it not seem strange she would be asking him to perform a miracle if she had not seem him perform a miracle in the past?

[Woodrow]

I've got a problem there because John 2:11 says that the first miracle that Jesus performed was when he was an adult at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. So either these accounts of earlier miracles are wrong or John's gospel is wrong.

If memory serves me correct that miracle in the Bible was done at the request of his Mother. Does it not seem strange she would be asking him to perform a miracle if she had not seem him perform a miracle in the past?

[Hiroshi]

If memory serves me correct that miracle in the Bible was done at the request of his Mother. Does it not seem strange she would be asking him to perform a miracle if she had not seem him perform a miracle in the past?

Prophets in ancient Israel did perform miracles. And Jesus told his disciples, probably Mary included, that they could expect to see great miracles (John 1:50-51). Mary had had the angel Gabiel appear to her and also she had given birth to Jesus although she was still a virgin. These things would have given her faith. So on this occasion, like any mother, she was hoping to see her son do marvellous things.

[Hiroshi]

Peace Hiroshi,

Sorry to make another old man work so hard. But a few more questions came to mind:

Is Jesus(as) superior to the Angels, in your opinion?

Why were Angels created?

Where do the angels reside?

What are demons and where do they reside?

Everything in heaven and earth, so angels included, will bow down to Jesus according to Philippians 2:10. So Jesus is superior to everyone except God (1 Corinthians 15:27). The angels and all other creation were made for God's glory and because of his love. But also Colossians 1:16 says that all things were created for Jesus. So God also considered the wishes of Jesus in creating the angels and all other things.

The angels reside in heaven where God is. And Satan and the demons also dwelt in heaven up until the coming of God's kingdom (Revelation 12:9-12). From that time on they are confined to the vicinity of the earth and are angry knowing that their time is short.

[Hiroshi]

Some more questions:

Jehovah Witnesses seem to be a recent religion coming as an off shoot of the Bible Tract Society of the late 1800s.

When do JWs believe Jehovah Witnesses Originated?

It is a long story. Briefly C. T. Russell in America was disturbed by his church teaching that (1) some humans go to burn in hell forever after death and (2) that God has predestined them to this fate so that they cannot escape it. This horrified him. He even rejected Christianity for a time but decided to search for the truth. But in the end he went back again to examine the Bible and what he found was that many doctrines of the various churches were wrong.

He and his interested associates began to study the Bible intensely and publish the things that they investigated in tracts, magazines and books. As well as this, Russell went on preaching tours around the world to try to reach everyone with the Bible's message.

And the organisation that was started by Russell became the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. And its members and those who supported them eventually came to be known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Hiroshi]

How strong is the obligation for JW members to bring in converts?

Do you believe Humans are created to have immortal life, even after the destruction of the physical body?

The first century Christians were not divided between clergy and laity. Everyone went preaching. And they carried the Bible's message wherever they went. JWs try to follow that example. Also we believe that the preaching work has become urgent and that lives are involved with Armageddon very close. Love for God and for our fellow man motivate us to carry on the work even under persecution and difficulties.

Some faithful humans will be resurrected with new immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53-55; Revelation 20:6). Others will have to wait 1,000 years (Revelation 20:5). And some will be so wicked that they will never get immortal life but will have to die.

But between the time of our death and resurrection there is no consciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

[Woodrow]

It is a long story. Briefly C. T. Russell in America was disturbed by his church teaching that (1) some humans go to burn in hell forever after death and (2) that God has predestined them to this fate so that they cannot escape it. This horrified him. He even rejected Christianity for a time but decided to search for the truth. But in the end he went back again to examine the Bible and what he found was that many doctrines of the various churches were wrong.

He and his interested associates began to study the Bible intensely and publish the things that they investigated in tracts, magazines and books. As well as this, Russell went on preaching tours around the world to try to reach everyone with the Bible's message.

And the organisation that was started by Russell became the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. And its members and those who supported them eventually came to be known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Interesting, I have a bit of a problem with Russell being disturbed at the thought of an eternal Hell yet sees nothing horrifying about Angels created as perfect beings doing wrong, getting kicked out of eternal bliss and condemned to a very long but limited existence with knowledge it is going to end and they will be obliterated. erased, evaporated, zapped. Millions of years have passed with this thought and more years probably still remain. That must be a torment possibly even worse than the pains of hell as they had already tasted a moment of eternal bliss and now know they can not regain it. Now that is a cruel, sadistic punishment.

[Woodrow]

Some faithful humans will be resurrected with new immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53-55; Revelation 20:6). Others will have to wait 1,000 years (Revelation 20:5). And some will be so wicked that they will never get immortal life but will have to die.

But between the time of our death and resurrection there is no consciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Since there is no awareness of time, what is the point of the 1000 year delay, they will not know they were delayed.

" But between the time of our death and resurrection there is no consciousness"

[Hiroshi]

Interesting, I have a bit of a problem with Russell being disturbed at the thought of an eternal Hell yet sees nothing horrifying about Angels created as perfect beings doing wrong, getting kicked out of eternal bliss and condemned to a very long but limited existence with knowledge it is going to end and they will be obliterated. erased, evaporated, zapped. Millions of years have passed with this thought and more years probably still remain. That must be a torment possibly even worse than the pains of hell as they had already tasted a moment of eternal bliss and now know they can not regain it. Now that is a cruel, sadistic punishment.

Sorry, I am not explaining things very well. The demon angels have been in heaven until recently. Their expulsion out of heaven took place when God's kingdom came to power. Jesus gave us signs to look for so that we would know when the kingdom was near (Luke 21:31) and those prophecies are having fulfillment in these very times in which we live.

[Hiroshi]

Since there is no awareness of time, what is the point of the 1000 year delay, they will not know they were delayed.

Because they are brought back to life and live again. But they can still die if they choose to rebel. Only after they have proved faithful to the end of the 1,000 years will they be sure of everlasting life. At the end of the 1,000 years Satan launches a final attack to try to corrupt them.

Revelation 20:7-8 says: "When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore."

[Woodrow]

Sorry, I am not explaining things very well. The demon angels have been in heaven until recently. Their expulsion out of heaven took place when God's kingdom came to power. Jesus gave us signs to look for so that we would know when the kingdom was near (Luke 21:31) and those prophecies are having fulfillment in these very times in which we live.

Now I am even more confused.

Known Demons occupying Heaven? God(swt) having no power over earth until recently? I don't even know if I dare ask about the relationship between Michael (Mikail) the archAngel and Jesus? That may confuse me furhter.

[YusufNoor]

I didn't say that. Grace Seeker did. Just a joke I think.

i was addressing him..

Why do you say that I "know" that Jehovah is not God's name? It is God's name.

Peace Hiroshi,

my bad, i misread your post in another thread, #108 in Man needs a Savior:

Well, the Bible says many times that this is God's real name. The rendering "Jehovah" is derived from the consonants of one word and the vowels of another so a mistake was involved. But the fact is that we cannot be sure today what the vowels were in any case since the Jews stopped pronouncing the word until it's true sound passed out of memory.

so, your opinion is that the name was arrived at by mistake?

it is common knowledge that the name Jehovah is derived by adding the vowels from adonai with the Tetragramaton.

Jehovah Look up Jehovah at Dictionary.com
1530, Tyndale's erroneous transliteration of Heb. Tetragramaton YHWH, using vowel points of Adhonai "my lord" (see Yahweh). Used for YHWH (the full name being too sacred for utterance) in four places in the Old Testament in the K.J.V. where the usual translation lord would have been inconvenient; taken as the principal and personal name of God. The vowel substitution was originally made by the Masoretes as a direction to substitute Adhonai for "the ineffable name." European students of Heb. took this literally, which yielded L. JeHoVa (first attested in writings of Galatinus, 1516). Jehovah's Witnesses "member of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society" first attested 1933; the organization founded c.1879 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916); the name from Isa. xliii:10.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jehovah

the name is a mistake, therefore it is a fallacy to make this statement:

Well, the Bible says many times that this is God's real name.

IN FACT, this name NEVER appears in ANY original version of the OT

quoting Encyclopædia Britannica:

JEHOVAH (Yahweh[1]), in the Bible, the God of Israel. "Jehovah" is a modern mispronunciation of the Hebrew name, resulting from combining the consonants of that name, Jhvh, with the vowels of the word ădōnāy, "Lord," which the Jews substituted for the proper name in reading the scriptures. In such cases of substitution the vowels of the word which is to be read are written in the Hebrew text with the consonants of the word which is not to be read. The consonants of the word to be substituted are ordinarily written in the margin; but inasmuch as "Adonay" was regularly read instead of the ineffable name Jhvh, it was deemed unnecessary to note the fact at every occurrence. When Christian scholars began to study the Old Testament in Hebrew, if they were ignorant of this general rule or regarded the substitution as a piece of Jewish superstition, reading what actually stood in the text, they would inevitably pronounce the name Jěhōvāh. It is an unprofitable inquiry who first made this blunder; probably many fell into it independently. The statement still commonly repeated that it originated with Petrus Galatinus (1518) is erroneous; "Jehova" occurs in manuscripts at least as early as the 14th century.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_E...annica/Jehovah

Muslims [Arabs much sooner, yes]have been calling Allah by His Name since the 7th Century, no Christian on the planet called Allah by the name Jehovah at that time.

so let me ask, when when the VERY FIRST time that the name Jehovah was applied to The One True God in the Bible?

Peace

[Woodrow]

The first century Christians were not divided between clergy and laity. Everyone went preaching. And they carried the Bible's message wherever they went. JWs try to follow that example. Also we believe that the preaching work has become urgent and that lives are involved with Armageddon very close. Love for God and for our fellow man motivate us to carry on the work even under persecution and difficulties.

That is not very far from what we believe. We have no ordained clergy and see all Muslims as equal. We also believe the final days are upon us and all Muslims have a duty to save our fellow humans before it is too late.

While we believe Jesus(as) preached the true word of Allaah(swt) in the Injil given to him, we believe the Injil was lost and very little if any of the Bible retains the actual teachings of Jesus(as). Christianity vanished almost as fast as it came, probably as early as the appearance of Paul.

[Hiroshi]

Now I am even more confused.

Known Demons occupying Heaven? God(swt) having no power over earth until recently? I don't even know if I dare ask about the relationship between Michael (Mikail) the archAngel and Jesus? That may confuse me furhter.

The Qur'an mentions the faithful man Job. What was his story?

Job loved God and was a righteous man. He was also very rich and had a fine family. But Satan challenged that if Job lost everything that he possessed then he would curse God for his misfortune. God allowed Satan to put Job to the test. Satan then destroyed everything that Job had including all of his children. Job was grief stricken. But he did not curse God.

Satan then demanded to test Job further, saying that if Job had to suffer pain then he would surely curse God. God granted him permission once more. And Satan struck Job with a loathsome disease with pain all over his body. But even then, Job did not curse God.

Job's love for God was so great that nothing would cause him to utter a curse upon God. Satan was proven to be a liar. And Job was vindicated from Satan's accusations.

God then richly rewarded faithful Job and gave him back his riches and he had more children.


But Satan didn't give up his accusations. Concerning God's servants, Revelation 12:10 says that Satan "accuses them before our God day and night". This is what Satan and the demons have been doing in heaven for thousands of years while they do their utmost also to corrupt mankind that live upon the earth.

But when God's servants act in a right way then Satan is shown to be wrong. As a troublemaker, Satan and all who side with him will finally be destroyed and all of his slander will be answered and proven to be lies for all to see.

[aadil77]

Oh, you know THE WORD I want to examine without me even mentioning it. ("THE" pun definitely intended.) But I don't think there is any point bothering. People from both of our divergent viewpoints have gone over it countless times with each other to no avail. So, I doubt that either of us will learn anything particularly convincing, informative, or even new enough to be interesting out of that discussion.

I know nothing about the different translations, but does the word start with a B and end with a N?

[aadil77]

Some faithful humans will be resurrected with new immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:53-55; Revelation 20:6). Others will have to wait 1,000 years (Revelation 20:5). And some will be so wicked that they will never get immortal life but will have to die.

.

Do you believe that simply having to 'die' is a Just punishment for living a life of 'wicked'ness?

[Hiroshi]

it is common knowledge that the name Jehovah is derived by adding the vowels from adonai with the Tetragramaton.

There are a number of things to consider. Can we today know the precise way to pronounce the name? Answer: "No." Does that matter? Again: "No." Both in the Qur'an and in translations of the Bible there are many names that are not pronounced today as when the person was alive on earth. Jesus was called "Yeshua"; not "Isa" or "Jesus". John was called "Yohanan"; not "Yahya" or "John". Further, it is not possible for everyone to pronounce the name in precisely the same way in any case. Because of their accent, Italians say: "Geova" instead of "Jehovah". And Japanese say "Ehoba".

What matters is that we do use God's name in the form that is recognized in our own language or dialect. In English the two forms "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are used. But the form "Jehovah" is far more common and accepted. In ancient Greek writings the name appears as "Iao". This may have sounded like "Yahoh" or "Yahowa". And it may have been pronounced differently to the Hebrew form. Again, it doesn't matter. Examining the Bible we take note that God's servants did use God's personal name and we should not shrink from doing so.

[Hiroshi]

Do you believe that simply having to 'die' is a Just punishment for living a life of 'wicked'ness?

Yes because Romans 6:23 (and many other Biblical statements) says: "The wages of sin is death."

[Hiroshi]

While we believe Jesus(as) preached the true word of Allaah(swt) in the Injil given to him, we believe the Injil was lost and very little if any of the Bible retains the actual teachings of Jesus(as). Christianity vanished almost as fast as it came, probably as early as the appearance of Paul.

I know that this is what Muslims believe. It is just strange that that, rather than encourage people to examine the Bible, Islam directs people to avoid it like the plague. I am sure that most members of Islamic Board do not feel inclined to look up scriptures in the Bible when I cite them for reference.

[aadil77]

Yes because Romans 6:23 (and many other Biblical statements) says: "The wages of sin is death."

since everyone dies at some point in their life, how is this punishment different for someone who does not live a wicked life?

[Woodrow]

I know that this is what Muslims believe. It is just strange that that, rather than encourage people to examine the Bible, Islam directs people to avoid it like the plague. I am sure that most members of Islamic Board do not feel inclined to look up scriptures in the Bible when I cite them for reference.

We are discouraged from reading things that serve no purpose or may lead us astray. For many living in Islamic lands where they are not likely to come in contact with Christians there is no need to read the Bible so few do. However, even in those lands in universities that have Comparative religion classes the Bible is read. Here in the Western world nearly every Muslim has read at least portions of the Bible and many of us are reverts from Christianity and often are well read in Biblical Scripture.

I believe you will be surprised at how many of us on this forum have at least one version of the Bible in their homes.

[Grace Seeker]

But between the time of our death and resurrection there is no consciousness (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

No consciousness or no existence? Those are two different things, and the Watchtower material that I have says that Jesus ceased to exist from the time of his death on the cross till his resurrection, not that he was merely unconscious. Can you elaborate, please?

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry, I am not explaining things very well. The demon angels have been in heaven until recently. Their expulsion out of heaven took place when God's kingdom came to power. Jesus gave us signs to look for so that we would know when the kingdom was near (Luke 21:31) and those prophecies are having fulfillment in these very times in which we live.

"In these very times in which we live."? So, this has actually happened since the founding of the JWs? Exactly when (or if you can't be exact, within 10 years (+ or -) would be good enough) did God's kingdom come to power?

[جوري]

Peace Hiroshi,

my bad, i misread your post in another thread, #108 in Man needs a Savior:



so, your opinion is that the name was arrived at by mistake?

it is common knowledge that the name Jehovah is derived by adding the vowels from adonai with the Tetragramaton.



http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Jehovah

the name is a mistake, therefore it is a fallacy to make this statement:



IN FACT, this name NEVER appears in ANY original version of the OT

quoting Encyclopædia Britannica:



http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_E...annica/Jehovah

Muslims [Arabs much sooner, yes]have been calling Allah by His Name since the 7th Century, no Christian on the planet called Allah by the name Jehovah at that time.

so let me ask, when when the VERY FIRST time that the name Jehovah was applied to The One True God in the Bible?

Peace

CHAPTER THREE

WHO IS JEHOVAH?

Astonishing as it may sound, it is an admitted fact that prior to the sixteenth century, the word "Jehovah," was unheard of. Whenever the origin of this word appeared in its true Hebrew form in Jewish Scriptures (read from right to left as in Arabic) Yet, Huh, Wav, Huh; or Y.H.W.H. these four letters were preceded by a substitute word "Adonai," to warn the reader that the following word was not to be articulated. The Jews took meticulous care in repeating this exercise in their "Book of God" six thousand, eight hundred and twenty-three times - interpolating the words "Adonai" or "Elohim." They sincerely believed that this awesome name of God was never to be pronounced. This prohibition was no ordinary affair: it called for a penalty of death on one who dared to utter it, and this taboo has been more successful than all the "DO's" and "DON'T's" of the Ten Commandments put together.
If Jehovah is the name of God Almighty, and if the 27 Books of the New Testament were inspired by Him, then it is an anomaly of the highest order, that He (Jehovah) signally failed to have His Own Name recorded in "His Word" (N.T.) the Christian addition to the Jewish Bible. The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand so-called "originals" of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has "Jehovah" written in it. Curiously this "name of God" (?) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky'ri.os and the.os', which mean 'Lord' and 'God.' Yet, miracle of miracles - Alleluya! - no devil or saint has been able to eliminate the word "ALLAH" from the so-called New Testament of the Christians.
NEW FANGLED DOCTRINES
A hundred years ago, all of a sudden, more than a hundred new cults and denominations of Christiandom mushroomed in the United States of America. The Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Menonites, the Christiadelphins, The Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The founder of the last named cult, a Judge Rutherford, about whom the orthodox Christians say that he was no "Judge." This Judge was a voracious book-worm and a prolific writer. He stumbled across the word "Jehovah" which tickled him immensely, and he made a religion out of it.
Judge Rutherford, followed by Charles T. Russell created a new "church," which in its system of organisation and administration is second to none in the world. There is very much we Muslims can learn from their enthusiasm and methodology. Read, "Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave" by Schelin. It is not their theology I am enamoured with but their modus operandi (the way they operate). Read, how this incorrigible sect came very close to conquering Germany before Hitler. Read, about their second come- back in West Germany. Think, why they are making a most concerted effort in Nigeria. Will the system or religion that prevails in Nigeria, be utlimately the norm of the rest of Africa! This giant is the hero of the majority of the African people south of the Sahara. Muslims must reflect.
VIRILE SECT
The "Jehovah's Witnesses," have made the most phenominal progress of all the religious sects of the past hundred years, on a percentage basis. The Bahaies are moving at a snails-pace in comparison, actually receding in ratio with the other Christian off-shoots. These "Witnesses" are the fittest in their fight against the other Christians as well as against the Muslims. Simply because they programme themselves five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls," and what they learn they implement during the week-ends. We Muslims are supposed to be "programmed" five times a day in our daily Salaat, but we have lost the true purpose of this Pillar of Islam. Our Salaat is for earning Sawaab (spiritual blessings) only.
They have made the word JEHOVAH famous. They knock at people's doors, asking the question - "What is His Name?" The orthodox Christian replies - "God." They say, "God is not a name, it is an object of worship. What's His Name?" "Father," says the orthodox as a second try. "Is your father God?" Of course not! So what is His Name? "JEHOVAH! is His Name," says the "Witness" to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. He has become a professor of this one word. He has made it into a religion.
THE "TETRAGRAMMATON"
Why not for a change ask him, a question or two. Ask him where he got the word Jehovah from? He will surely reply - "From the Holy Bible." What does it say? Does it spell out the word J-e-h-o-v-a-h? "No," he will reply. "There is a 'tetragrammaton' in the Bible from which the word Jehovah is derived." What is a tetragrammaton? No one seems to have heard this highly mystical term. In the University of Illinois in the U.S.A. I asked a gathering of students and lecturers whether any one had heard this jaw-breaker! Not one of them knew its meaning! But every Jehovah's Witness seems to know, even the commonest of them. They have really specialised - ours is a world of specialisation. They are Professors of the one word - Jehovah.
What then is a "tetragrammaton!" The Jehovah's Witness replies, "Y H W Hi!"
"No!" "What I want to know from you is, what does the word tetragrammaton mean?" You will find him most reluctant in explaining. Either he does not really know, or he is feeling embarrassed in replying. "Tetra," in Greek means FOUR, and "grammaton," means LETTERS. It simply means "a four letter word."
Can you read into Y H W H the word Jehovah? I cannot. "No!", says the Jehovah's Witness, "we ought to add vowels to these four consonents to produce the sound. Originally, both Hebrew and Arabic were written without the vowel signs The native of each language was able to read if even without those vowels. Not so the outsider, for whose benefit the vowels were invented.
THE "J" SICKNESS
Let us add the vowels as the "Witness" suggests. YHWH becomes YeHoWaH. Juggle as you like but you can never materialise Jehovah! Ask him, from which hat he drew his "J". He will tell you that "this is the 'popular' pronunciation from the 16th century." The exact sound of the four letters YHWH is known neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, yet he is ramming JEHOVAH down everyones throats. The European Christians have developed a fondness (sickness) for the letter "J" They add J's where there are no Jays. Look!
Yael he converts to Joel Yehuda to Juda Yeheshua to Joshua Yusuf to Joseph Yunus to Jonah Yesus to Jesus Yehowa to Jehovah There is no end to the Westerner's infatuation for the letter "J." Now in the busy streets of South Africa, he charges people who carelessly cross them for "jay-walking," but nobody charges him for converting Jewish (Yehudi) names into Gentile names.
The letters Y H W H occur in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6 823 times, boasts the Jehovah's Witness, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;" 156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in the English Bible as "Lord God," "Lord God," Lord God," ad infinitum.
COMMON ORIGIN
What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.1
Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.

HEBREW ARABIC ENGLISH Elah Ilah god Ikhud Ahud one Yaum Yaum day Shaloam Salaam peace Yahuwa Ya Huwa oh he

YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.
1. For a closer affinity between Arabs and Jews read Genesis 16:12 and 25:18, and for a further elucidation, see "What the Bible says about Muhammed."

PAGE 3 OF 4

so apparently 'oh he' is the secret/ancient name of god


:w:

[Grace Seeker]

I know nothing about the different translations, but does the word start with a B and end with a N?

No. It starts with a T and ends with an E.

[Grace Seeker]

What matters is that we do use God's name in the form that is recognized in our own language or dialect. In English the two forms "Yahweh" and "Jehovah" are used. But the form "Jehovah" is far more common and accepted. In ancient Greek writings the name appears as "Iao". This may have sounded like "Yahoh" or "Yahowa". And it may have been pronounced differently to the Hebrew form. Again, it doesn't matter. Examining the Bible we take note that God's servants did use God's personal name and we should not shrink from doing so.

Hey, I may have learned something about JWs today. I thought that it was important to JWs to use "Jehovah" and only "Jehovah" as God's name. But, if I understand you correctly, it would be just as acceptable to use "Yahweh"? What about simply using "YHWH" when writing, would that be acceptable?

[Ramadhan]

I know that this is what Muslims believe. It is just strange that that, rather than encourage people to examine the Bible, Islam directs people to avoid it like the plague. I am sure that most members of Islamic Board do not feel inclined to look up scriptures in the Bible when I cite them for reference.

When you already have the preserved pure words of God (ie. the Qur'an), why do you want to examine a book (Ie. bible) whose authors were unknown, full of errors and contradictions and there is no distinction what actually was historical what was imaginations, no original exist, and instead thousands of versions exist which disagree with each other.

[B_M]

Wow, I never knew Jehovah Witnesses believed Catholics aren't Christians.

:haha:

[tango92]

Wow, I never knew Jehovah Witnesses believed Catholics aren't Christians.

:haha:

im sure the catholics believe the JW's arent christian either!

[Hiroshi]

When you already have the preserved pure words of God (ie. the Qur'an), why do you want to examine a book (Ie. bible) whose authors were unknown, full of errors and contradictions and there is no distinction what actually was historical what was imaginations, no original exist, and instead thousands of versions exist which disagree with each other.

Peace, Naidamar.

So, where are all these contradictions in the Bible that you speak of?

[Hiroshi]

Hey, I may have learned something about JWs today. I thought that it was important to JWs to use "Jehovah" and only "Jehovah" as God's name. But, if I understand you correctly, it would be just as acceptable to use "Yahweh"? What about simply using "YHWH" when writing, would that be acceptable?

"Yahweh" sounds okay. But YHWH seems to give a signal that there is a problem. We commonly use Bible names based on "Jehovah" like Jehoram (means: "Jehovah is exalted") or Jehoshaphat (means: "Jehovah judged"). What is wrong with just using "Jehovah"?

[Hiroshi]

"In these very times in which we live."? So, this has actually happened since the founding of the JWs? Exactly when (or if you can't be exact, within 10 years (+ or -) would be good enough) did God's kingdom come to power?

In Daniel there is a prophecy about a tree being cut down and banded with iron and copper while 7 "times" pass. This is a Messianic prophecy relating to God's kingdom. The tree was cut down when the last Judean king of David's line was taken into exile by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. That was king Zedekiah. The Jews returned from 70 years of exile in Babylon in 537 BCE. So the exile must have had it's beginning in 607 BCE. This is also when the 7 times began. The tree represented God's kingship through the line of Judean kings. It was cut down in 607 BCE and would be restored again when the final king of David's line, Jesus himself, began to rule. Each of the 7 times make up 360 years. 7 x 360 years= 2,520 years. So counting 2,520 years from 607 BCE we come to 1914 CE (there is no year "zero").

1914 saw the beginning of the fulfillment of all the things that Jesus said would be signs of the nearness of the kingdom (Luke 21:10-11; Luke 21:31). These included wars, famine, pestilence and eathquakes. All of this "woe" for the earth is on account of Satan having great anger knowing that his time is short (Revelation 12:10-12).

I have skipped a lot a details but these are the main reasons why we believe that these things having to do with the coming of the kingdom are happening right now.

[Hiroshi]

No consciousness or no existence? Those are two different things, and the Watchtower material that I have says that Jesus ceased to exist from the time of his death on the cross till his resurrection, not that he was merely unconscious. Can you elaborate, please?

We are still in God's memory even after we die. So he can bring us back from the dead.

[Ramadhan]

So, where are all these contradictions in the Bible that you speak of?

Here's just some samples of bible's errors and contradictions; feel free to browse through and address them:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...criptures.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ted-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...oly-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...istianity.html


I do hope you have some ample free time, which I suspect you do, if you are a "professional" christian like our fellow Grace Seeker.

[Hiroshi]

CHAPTER THREE
WHO IS JEHOVAH?

Astonishing as it may sound, it is an admitted fact that prior to the sixteenth century, the word "Jehovah," was unheard of. Whenever the origin of this word appeared in its true Hebrew form in Jewish Scriptures (read from right to left as in Arabic) Yet, Huh, Wav, Huh; or Y.H.W.H. these four letters were preceded by a substitute word "Adonai," to warn the reader that the following word was not to be articulated. The Jews took meticulous care in repeating this exercise in their "Book of God" six thousand, eight hundred and twenty-three times - interpolating the words "Adonai" or "Elohim." They sincerely believed that this awesome name of God was never to be pronounced. This prohibition was no ordinary affair: it called for a penalty of death on one who dared to utter it, and this taboo has been more successful than all the "DO's" and "DON'T's" of the Ten Commandments put together.
If Jehovah is the name of God Almighty, and if the 27 Books of the New Testament were inspired by Him, then it is an anomaly of the highest order, that He (Jehovah) signally failed to have His Own Name recorded in "His Word" (N.T.) the Christian addition to the Jewish Bible. The Christians claim that they have in their possession over twenty-four thousand so-called "originals" of their Holy Writ in the Greek language, and yet not a single parchment has "Jehovah" written in it. Curiously this "name of God" (?) has been sacrilegiously replaced by the Greek words ky'ri.os and the.os', which mean 'Lord' and 'God.' Yet, miracle of miracles - Alleluya! - no devil or saint has been able to eliminate the word "ALLAH" from the so-called New Testament of the Christians.
NEW FANGLED DOCTRINES
A hundred years ago, all of a sudden, more than a hundred new cults and denominations of Christiandom mushroomed in the United States of America. The Seventh Day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, the Menonites, the Christiadelphins, The Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The founder of the last named cult, a Judge Rutherford, about whom the orthodox Christians say that he was no "Judge." This Judge was a voracious book-worm and a prolific writer. He stumbled across the word "Jehovah" which tickled him immensely, and he made a religion out of it.
Judge Rutherford, followed by Charles T. Russell created a new "church," which in its system of organisation and administration is second to none in the world. There is very much we Muslims can learn from their enthusiasm and methodology. Read, "Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave" by Schelin. It is not their theology I am enamoured with but their modus operandi (the way they operate). Read, how this incorrigible sect came very close to conquering Germany before Hitler. Read, about their second come- back in West Germany. Think, why they are making a most concerted effort in Nigeria. Will the system or religion that prevails in Nigeria, be utlimately the norm of the rest of Africa! This giant is the hero of the majority of the African people south of the Sahara. Muslims must reflect.
VIRILE SECT
The "Jehovah's Witnesses," have made the most phenominal progress of all the religious sects of the past hundred years, on a percentage basis. The Bahaies are moving at a snails-pace in comparison, actually receding in ratio with the other Christian off-shoots. These "Witnesses" are the fittest in their fight against the other Christians as well as against the Muslims. Simply because they programme themselves five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls," and what they learn they implement during the week-ends. We Muslims are supposed to be "programmed" five times a day in our daily Salaat, but we have lost the true purpose of this Pillar of Islam. Our Salaat is for earning Sawaab (spiritual blessings) only.
They have made the word JEHOVAH famous. They knock at people's doors, asking the question - "What is His Name?" The orthodox Christian replies - "God." They say, "God is not a name, it is an object of worship. What's His Name?" "Father," says the orthodox as a second try. "Is your father God?" Of course not! So what is His Name? "JEHOVAH! is His Name," says the "Witness" to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. He has become a professor of this one word. He has made it into a religion.
THE "TETRAGRAMMATON"
Why not for a change ask him, a question or two. Ask him where he got the word Jehovah from? He will surely reply - "From the Holy Bible." What does it say? Does it spell out the word J-e-h-o-v-a-h? "No," he will reply. "There is a 'tetragrammaton' in the Bible from which the word Jehovah is derived." What is a tetragrammaton? No one seems to have heard this highly mystical term. In the University of Illinois in the U.S.A. I asked a gathering of students and lecturers whether any one had heard this jaw-breaker! Not one of them knew its meaning! But every Jehovah's Witness seems to know, even the commonest of them. They have really specialised - ours is a world of specialisation. They are Professors of the one word - Jehovah.
What then is a "tetragrammaton!" The Jehovah's Witness replies, "Y H W Hi!"
"No!" "What I want to know from you is, what does the word tetragrammaton mean?" You will find him most reluctant in explaining. Either he does not really know, or he is feeling embarrassed in replying. "Tetra," in Greek means FOUR, and "grammaton," means LETTERS. It simply means "a four letter word."
Can you read into Y H W H the word Jehovah? I cannot. "No!", says the Jehovah's Witness, "we ought to add vowels to these four consonents to produce the sound. Originally, both Hebrew and Arabic were written without the vowel signs The native of each language was able to read if even without those vowels. Not so the outsider, for whose benefit the vowels were invented.
THE "J" SICKNESS
Let us add the vowels as the "Witness" suggests. YHWH becomes YeHoWaH. Juggle as you like but you can never materialise Jehovah! Ask him, from which hat he drew his "J". He will tell you that "this is the 'popular' pronunciation from the 16th century." The exact sound of the four letters YHWH is known neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles, yet he is ramming JEHOVAH down everyones throats. The European Christians have developed a fondness (sickness) for the letter "J" They add J's where there are no Jays. Look!
Yael he converts to Joel Yehuda to Juda Yeheshua to Joshua Yusuf to Joseph Yunus to Jonah Yesus to Jesus Yehowa to Jehovah There is no end to the Westerner's infatuation for the letter "J." Now in the busy streets of South Africa, he charges people who carelessly cross them for "jay-walking," but nobody charges him for converting Jewish (Yehudi) names into Gentile names.
The letters Y H W H occur in the Hebrew (Jewish) Scriptures 6 823 times, boasts the Jehovah's Witness, and it occurs in combination with the word "Elohim;" 156 times in the booklet called Genesis alone. This combination YHWH/ELOHIM has been consistently translated in the English Bible as "Lord God," "Lord God," Lord God," ad infinitum.
COMMON ORIGIN
What is YHWH; and what is ELOHIM? Since the lews did not articulate the word YHWH for centuries, and since even the Chief Rabbis would not allow the ineffable to be heard, they have forfeited the right to claim dogmatically how the word is to be sounded. We have to seek the aid of the Arab to revive Hebrew, a language which had once died out. In every linguistic difficulty recourse has to be made to Arabic, a sister language, which has remained alive and viable. Racially and linguistically, the Arabs and the Jews have a common origin, going back to Father Abraham.1
Note the startling resemblance between the languages, very often the same sounding words carry identical meaning in both.

HEBREW ARABIC ENGLISH Elah Ilah god Ikhud Ahud one Yaum Yaum day Shaloam Salaam peace Yahuwa Ya Huwa oh he

YHWH or Yehova or Yahuwa all mean the very same thing. "Ya" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Hebrew and Arabic, meaning Oh! And "Huwa" or "Hu" means He, again in both Hebrew and Arabic. Together they mean Oh He! So instead of YHWH ELOHIM, we now have Oh He! ELOHIM.
1. For a closer affinity between Arabs and Jews read Genesis 16:12 and 25:18, and for a further elucidation, see "What the Bible says about Muhammed."

PAGE 3 OF 4

so apparently 'oh he' is the secret/ancient name of god


:w:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Meaning of the Divine Name


Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Exodus 3:14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Exodus 3:6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulgate), "I am who is" (Septuagint), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion)

Unquote.

So we have the meaning, as noted above: "I shall be [who] shall be". Rotheram's translation renders Exodus 3:14 as "I Shall Become Whatsoever I Please". The thought carried by the divine name is that God will cause himself to become whatever they would need in order to help them. That was what the Israelites suffering in bondage to the Egyptians needed to hear. They were desperate for help.

[جوري]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Meaning of the Divine Name


Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Exodus 3:14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Exodus 3:6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulgate), "I am who is" (Septuagint), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion)

Unquote.

So we have the meaning, as noted above: "I shall be [who] shall be". Rotheram's translation renders Exodus 3:14 as "I Shall Become Whatsoever I Please". The thought carried by the divine name is that God will cause himself to become whatever they would need in order to help them. That was what the Israelites suffering in bondage to the egyptians needed to hear. They were desperate for help.

It doesn't matter what the catholic encyclopedia says, considering it hasn't gone down to the etymology and the root of the words as Dr. Deedat has above, they are not anymore astray than you are.. 'to be' isn't god's name the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal this is also crap since qal means 'he said' not 'to be' so it isn't any wonder to me that they worship a man if they can't get to the meaning of any word, you can take men for gods, guidance for spirits and God knows what else..

all the best

[GreyKode]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

Meaning of the Divine Name


Jahveh (Yahweh) is one of the archaic Hebrew nouns, such as Jacob, Joseph, Israel, etc. (cf. Ewald, "Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache", 7th ed., 1863, p. 664), derived from the third person imperfect in such a way as to attribute to a person or a thing the action of the quality expressed by the verb after the manner of a verbal adjective or a participle. Furst has collected most of these nouns, and calls the form forma participialis imperfectiva. As the Divine name is an imperfect form of the archaic Hebrew verb "to be", Jahveh means "He Who is", Whose characteristic note consists in being, or The Being simply.
Here we are confronted with the question, whether Jahveh is the imperfect hiphil or the imperfect qal. Calmet and Le Clere believe that the Divine name is a hiphil form; hence it signifies, according to Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., p. 25), He Who brings into existence, the Creator; and according to Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 153), He Who causes to arrive, Who realizes His promises, the God of Providence. But this opinion is not in keeping with Exodus 3:14, nor is there any trace in Hebrew of a hiphil form of the verb meaning "to be"; moreover, this hiphil form is supplied in the cognate languages by the pi'el form, except in Syriac where the hiphil is rare and of late occurrence.
On the other hand, Jehveh may be an imperfect qal from a grammatical point of view, and the traditional exegesis of Exodus 3:6-16, seems to necessitate the form Jahveh. Moses asks God: "If they should say to me: What is his [God's] name? What shall I say to them?" In reply, God returns three times to the determination of His name. First, He uses the first person imperfect of the Hebrew verb "to be"; here the Vulgate, the Septuagint, Aquila, Theodotion, and the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal; only the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem imply the imperfect hiphil. Hence we have the renderings: "I am who am" (Vulgate), "I am who is" (Septuagint), "I shall be [who] shall be" (Aquila, Theodotion)

Unquote.

So we have the meaning, as noted above: "I shall be [who] shall be". Rotheram's translation renders Exodus 3:14 as "I Shall Become Whatsoever I Please". The thought carried by the divine name is that God will cause himself to become whatever they would need in order to help them. That was what the Israelites suffering in bondage to the egyptians needed to hear. They were desperate for help.

what you just said seems consistent with the meaning
يا هو
Which means in arabic "oh him".

[Hiroshi]

Here's just some samples of bible's errors and contradictions; feel free to browse through and address them:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...criptures.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ted-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...oly-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...istianity.html


I do hope you have some ample free time, which I suspect you do, if you are a "professional" christian like our fellow Grace Seeker.

Let's take these one at a time then.

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2 Samuel 24:1 uses a pronoun for the one inciting David to take the census. Some translations render the verse to make it appear that this one is God himself. But this is not necessarily the sense that is meant here. Youngs Literal Translation renders the verse: "And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and [an adversary] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'" And the New World Translation reads: "And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.” There is no conflict here with 1 Chronicles 21:1.

[Grace Seeker]

1914 saw the beginning of the fulfillment of all the things that Jesus said would be signs of the nearness of the kingdom (Luke 21:10-11; Luke 21:31). These included wars, famine, pestilence and eathquakes. All of this "woe" for the earth is on account of Satan having great anger knowing that his time is short (Revelation 12:10-12).

Do you realize that despite 2 "world wars" and what seems like countless other conflicts, that reality is there has actually been less war in the 20th and first decade of the 21st century than any other time in recorded history? There has also been less famine and pestilence. I can't speak to earthquakes comparing one century to another, but even with a couple of notable ones in the news this year, the 2010 seems to be an average year according to the USGS.

[Predator]

I've got a problem there because John 2:11 says that the first miracle that Jesus performed was when he was an adult at a marriage feast in Cana of Galilee. So either these accounts of earlier miracles are wrong or John's gospel is wrong.

The same feast is mentioned in the Quran but nothing about water being turned into wine

(The Noble Quran, 5:112-116)


Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear God, if ye have faith." They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle." Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O God our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)." God said: "I will send it down unto you: But if any of you after that resisteth faith, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the peoples."

I cant understand how would Jesus(PBUH) turn the water into the poison of madness which is clearly prohibited in the bible

Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Leviticus 10:9)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1)
*****dom and wine take away the heart. (Hosea 4:11)

[جوري]

Do christians actually believe in the table that was brought down from heaven? as that was a test to the disciples...

[Ramadhan]

Let's take these one at a time then.

1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2 Samuel 24:1 uses a pronoun for the one inciting David to take the census. Some translations render the verse to make it appear that this one is God himself. But this is not necessarily the sense that is meant here. Youngs Literal Translation renders the verse: "And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and [an adversary] moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'" And the New World Translation reads: "And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.” There is no conflict here with 1 Chronicles 21:1.

Wait a sec, we are using KJV or what?
because KJV IS THE Bible, no?

no other translations are allowed, that would be heretical, no?

[Hiroshi]

Wait a sec, we are using KJV or what?
because KJV IS THE Bible, no?

no other translations are allowed, that would be heretical, no?

When the KJV was prepared it probably was the best available version at that time. But only a few manuscripts (and of poor authority) were available then whereas we today have thousands of much older and more reliable manuscripts. Literally thousands of errors have been found in the KJV. It even mistranslates some words as mythical animals such as the cockatrice and the unicorn.

I find the KJV useful mainly because it is widely accepted. But I have to make sure that there are no errors in what is being quoted.

[Hiroshi]

Here's just some samples of bible's errors and contradictions; feel free to browse through and address them:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ons-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/...criptures.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ted-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...oly-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ors-bible.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...istianity.html


I do hope you have some ample free time, which I suspect you do, if you are a "professional" christian like our fellow Grace Seeker.

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?
• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?
• Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)
4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?
• Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
• Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

The variations in the numbers may have been the result of copyist errors but this is unlikely. It is more probable that one group of numbers includes the men in the army and their officers while another only includes those of the common people who could fight with a sword. And also there may have been numbers of men that were related to both Israel and Judah and these were grouped differently in the two accounts. Without having all of the details available we cannot be sure.

One explanation for the difference in the years of famine is that there had already occurred 3 years of famine as a result of the sin of king Saul. The year when the census was taken would have been a 4th year (it took 9 months and 20 days). And then the further 3 years that were now threatened would make a total of 7.

[Ramadhan]

The variations in the numbers may have been the result of copyist errors but this is unlikely. It is more probable that one group of numbers includes the men in the army and their officers while another only includes those of the common people who could fight with a sword. And also there may have been numbers of men that were related to both Israel and Judah and these were grouped differently in the two accounts. Without having all of the details available we cannot be sure.

One explanation for the difference in the years of famine is that there had already occurred 3 years of famine as a result of the sin of king Saul. The year when the census was taken would have been a 4th year (it took 9 months and 20 days). And then the further 3 years that were now threatened would make a total of 7.

So you agree that those are errors and contradictions.

Thank you.

[Ramadhan]

I find the KJV useful mainly because it is widely accepted

So which scriptures are you using?
I presume you are not using kjv?
In what way is your scriptures different from kjv?

Do you find people who use kjv, like grace seeker, heretics?
Is grace seeker christian, according to you?

[Hiroshi]

So which scriptures are you using?

Mostly the New International Version. I also quote from the JW's New World Translation if no one objects.

In what way is your scriptures different from kjv?

For example, the KJV has many passages that seem to support the trinity doctrine.

1 Timothy 3:16 "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit ..." NIV
1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit ... KJV

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that testify" NIV
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." KJV

Revelation 1:11 "which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches ..."" NIV
Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches ..." KJV
(The Alpha and Omega is understood to be God. But it is Jesus speaking in this verse.)

Comparison with a modern version like the NIV reveals that there are errors in these verses in the KJV.

Do you find people who use kjv, like grace seeker, heretics?
Is grace seeker christian, according to you?

No. And I guess Grace Seeker would say the same about me. Even Muslims are divided amongst Sunnis and Shias and hundreds of smaller sects, so I have been told. Is this true?

[Hiroshi]

So you agree that those are errors and contradictions.

Thank you.

Copyist errors do appear in passages in the Bible. Almost all of them are of no consequence. But in these examples I do not believe that there are any errors. The only problem is that we don't have all of the information.

[Ramadhan]

Copyist errors do appear in passages in the Bible. Almost all of them are of no consequence. But in these examples I do not believe that there are any errors. The only problem is that we don't have all of the information.

I just find it unfathomable that anyone can base their whole life and the salvation of after life on such books having proven errors.
But hey, each to their own...

[Ramadhan]

For example, the KJV has many passages that seem to support the trinity doctrine.

1 Timothy 3:16 "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit ..." NIV
1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit ... KJV

1 John 5:7 "For there are three that testify" NIV
1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." KJV

Revelation 1:11 "which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches ..."" NIV
Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches ..." KJV
(The Alpha and Omega is understood to be God. But it is Jesus speaking in this verse.)

Comparison with a modern version like the NIV reveals that there are errors in these verses in the KJV.

How come those bible versions were so different, and at fundamental levels/passages at that?
Weren't they translated from the same sources? Or were there many different sources to begin with?

And I guess Grace Seeker would say the same about me.

And what makes Grace seekers (or any other non-JW "christians") heretics?

[Hiroshi]

Do christians actually believe in the table that was brought down from heaven? as that was a test to the disciples...

Acts 10:9-23 says:
"9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."
21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?" 22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.


I think that this must be what the Qur'an refers to as the table from heaven. Peter had this vision to show him that he was not to view non-Jews as in any way "unclean". Although it had been considered wrong for a Jew to eat and associate with uncircumcised men (Acts 11:2), Peter was shown that God was now extending a welcome to the Gentiles to become believers also.

[Hiroshi]

I just find it unfathomable that anyone can base their whole life and the salvation of after life on such books having proven errors.
But hey, each to their own...

The original writings of the Bible were not in error. But even with the greatest care, small copyist mistakes were sometimes made. In the case of the Hebrew scriptures this has been estimated to affect less than one word in a thousand. And, as I said, almost all said copyist errors are of no consequence, not affecting anything doctrinal.

If you received an important letter or message from your own father, but one word in a thousand had been wrongly transmitted, would you refuse to examine it?

[Hiroshi]

The same feast is mentioned in the Quran but nothing about water being turned into wine

(The Noble Quran, 5:112-116)


Behold! the disciples, said: "O Jesus the son of Mary! can thy Lord send down to us a table set (with viands) from heaven?" Said Jesus: "Fear God, if ye have faith." They said: "We only wish to eat thereof and satisfy our hearts, and to know that thou hast indeed told us the truth; and that we ourselves may be witnesses to the miracle." Said Jesus the son of Mary: "O God our Lord! Send us from heaven a table set (with viands), that there may be for us - for the first and the last of us - a solemn festival and a sign from thee; and provide for our sustenance, for thou art the best Sustainer (of our needs)." God said: "I will send it down unto you: But if any of you after that resisteth faith, I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on any one among all the peoples."

I cant understand how would Jesus(PBUH) turn the water into the poison of madness which is clearly prohibited in the bible

Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Leviticus 10:9)

Wine is a mocker, strong drink raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1)
*****dom and wine take away the heart. (Hosea 4:11)

Thanks for the references. The Bible does warn against drunkenness. But it doesn't prohibit alcohol use in moderation. Leviticus 10:9 is telling Aaron and his sons not to drink alcohol only while serving at the Tent of Meeting and offering incense to God.

[Ramadhan]

If you received an important letter or message from your own father, but one word in a thousand had been wrongly transmitted, would you refuse to examine it?

I have my opinion that God has a higher standard (much higher in fact) than my own father.
If it's a true message from God, I don't expect it to be full of errors and contradictions.

But you seem content to have god that send you error-ridden message, just like your father.
To each their won, I guess.


Oh, by the way, My dad (when he was alive) was very effective when he wrote letters to me. He did not confuse me with different numbers, days, amounts of money transmitted etc in his letters.

[Hiroshi]

How come those bible versions were so different, and at fundamental levels/passages at that?
Weren't they translated from the same sources? Or were there many different sources to begin with?

I will try to research all of your questions.

Please refer here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_J...extus_Receptus

Erasmus was the man who compiled the "Textus Receptus" which is the Greek text on which the KJV is based. In his early editions of the Greek text he omitted the extra words that appear in 1 John 5:7. These words had only appeared in the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages. But there was an outcry over this. Many believed that the omission of these words would threaten the trinity doctrine.

To quote from the link, this is what then happened:
"Erasmus is said to have replied to these critics that the Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could find, but that he would add it to future editions if it appeared in a single Greek manuscript. Such a manuscript was subsequently concocted by a Franciscan, and Erasmus, true to his word, added the Comma to his 1522 edition, but with a lengthy footnote setting out his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly to confute him. This third edition became a chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English-language scriptures for centuries."

[Grace Seeker]

The same feast is mentioned in the Quran but nothing about water being turned into wine

So, the Qur'an leaves things out. Christians have known this for years, for instance it leaves out Jesus' biggest miracle, the resurrection.

I just find it unfathomable that anyone can base their whole life and the salvation of after life on such books having proven errors.
But hey, each to their own...

I agree. See note above.

[Grace Seeker]

So which scriptures are you using?
I presume you are not using kjv?
In what way is your scriptures different from kjv?

Do you find people who use kjv, like grace seeker, heretics?
Is grace seeker christian, according to you?

naidamar, you consistently present things as true that simply are not true. While I do on occassion use the KJV, my views with regard to it's quality are roughly the same as Hiroshi. You will find that I do most of my quoting of biblical texts from the NIV, which I think is a better translation, but not necessarily perfect either. In fact, I would argue that no translation can be perfect simply because it is a translation. But that doesn't mean that people who cannot read the original texts and read only translations are reading something that is any less the Word of God than if they had the original autographs in their hands.

[Ramadhan]

I agree. See note above.

Hiroshi just showed me something, the scriptures that you are using is filled with errors, and turned out it did not have "trinity" in the books...

But if you are okay with that, heyy....

[Ramadhan]

double post..please delete

[Hiroshi]

naidamar, you consistently present things as true that simply are not true. While I do on occassion use the KJV, my views with regard to it's quality are roughly the same as Hiroshi.

I'm glad that we agree here.

[Grace Seeker]

I have my opinion that God has a higher standard (much higher in fact) than my own father.
If it's a true message from God, I don't expect it to be full of errors and contradictions.

But you seem content to have god that send you error-ridden message, just like your father.
To each their won, I guess.


Oh, by the way, My dad (when he was alive) was very effective when he wrote letters to me. He did not confuse me with different numbers, days, amounts of money transmitted etc in his letters.

You seem not to take the same care that your father did. I believe the correct phrase is "to each their own", not "won". Shall we now quit reading anything you have to say because you have been shown to assert as true things that are not true and write things that do not communicate the ideas you might be trying to communicate clearly? Shall we hold you and your messages to the same standards that you expect of the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi just showed me something, the scriptures that you are using is filled with errors, and turned out it did not have "trinity" in the books...

But if you are okay with that, heyy....

On last thing. If you check out that link, refer to my quote and then read further, you will see that some critics have questioned the story of Erasmus and his motives. But there is no doubt that he is the one responsible for those words (known as the "Johannine Comma") at 1 John 5:7 in the KJV today.

[Ramadhan]

While I do on occassion use the KJV, my views with regard to it's quality are roughly the same as Hiroshi. You will find that I do most of my quoting of biblical texts from the NIV, which I think is a better translation, but not necessarily perfect either.

Whats wrong with KJV?
so people who have been using for centuries were in fact misguided?
What makes NIV suddenly the bible en vogue?
Do you think there will be more "perfect" version in the future?
What kind of changes can we expect from future bibles?

In fact, I would argue that no translation can be perfect simply because it is a translation

No translation is perfect, eh?
very unusual coming from a christian.
I will have to bookmark this for future reference

[Ramadhan]

You seem not to take the same care that your father did. I believe the correct phrase is "to each their own", not "won". Shall we now quit reading anything you have to say because you have been shown to assert as true things that are not true and write things that do not communicate the ideas you might be trying to communicate clearly?

Only if you consider me God who gave errors-ridden message, then yes..

[Grace Seeker]

Whats wrong with KJV?
so people who have been using for centuries were in fact misguided?
What makes NIV suddenly the bible en vogue?
Do you think there will be more "perfect" version in the future?
What kind of changes can we expect from future bibles?

As the English language evolves I expect there to be new translations made in order to put the language of the Bible into the most modern and current venacular in use at the time. That is the whole purpose of a transation.

No. Not only will there never be a "perfect" translation of the Bible, but there can be no "perfect" translation of any other document. Consider the simple phrase, "mi casa es su casa". Which is the better translation, "My house is your house." or "My home is your home."? They are not equivalent concepts. In English those we sometimes use the term "house" and "home" interchangeably, they do carry different connotations to the native English speaker. But in Spanish, "casa" carries both of those connotations simultaneously. Hence, it is impossible to translate the Spanish phrase "Mi casa es su casa." into English perfectly. The issue, how do you translate not just the word but the meaning behind the words from the original texts into some other language, over and over again when translating any document, including the scriptures. And it is for this reason, even if there were no others, that I maintain that there will never be a perfect translation of the Bible, just as you recognize that no translation of the Qur'an is actually the Qur'an.

[Ramadhan]

Consider the simple phrase, "mi casa es su casa". Which is the better translation, "My house is your house." or "My home is your home."?

Unfortunately, "my house is your house" does not have the same impact as "jesus is our god".

But hey, that's only my opinion....

[جوري]

Acts 10:9-23 says:
"9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."
21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?" 22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.


I think that this must be what the Qur'an refers to as the table from heaven. Peter had this vision to show him that he was not to view non-Jews as in any way "unclean". Although it had been considered wrong for a Jew to eat and associate with uncircumcised men (Acts 11:2), Peter was shown that God was now extending a welcome to the Gentiles to become believers also.

That seems like a nice addendum (including all pigs) whatever the case, that isn't the Islamic view -- it had nothing to do with allowances of pigs or not or exclusively to peter.. It was a sign to the disciples from God, and when a great sign such as this is bestowed upon a select few, those of them who deny God thereafter have the most grievous punishment in hell. Like any folks before who were given a great sign, parting of the red sea or the beast that Saleh had as a sign to his people...

The 'last supper table' was one sent from heaven as a sign to the disciples not an allowance for pig eating or a welcome to the gentiles given that Jesus was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel!

all the best

[جوري]

So, the Qur'an leaves things out. Christians have known this for years, for instance it leaves out Jesus' biggest miracle, the resurrection.

or rather add things in that have become the downfall and a humerus anecdote for those that bother check it against common sense and what is written in the bible itself in various other places, and eventually disable you from being able to explain your religion to folks without them have to shrug with a hearty guffaw at the pathological logorrhea you attempt to make sense of any of it!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Unfortunately, "my house is your house" does not have the same impact as "jesus is our god".

But hey, that's only my opinion....

Don't play the fool; it doesn't become you. If you really can't understand the simple illustration and how it applies to the topic of translation, you are in such need for remedial education that there is no point in discussing the topic with you until you have obtained it.

[Ramadhan]

Don't play the fool; it doesn't become you.

This from a pastor?
What happened to the famous christians "love"?

If you really can't understand the simple illustration and how it applies to the topic of translation, you are in such need for remedial education that there is no point in discussing the topic with you until you have obtained it.

I conclude that you go for personal because you failed to explain how god can inspire people to write books full of errors and contradictions, although god intends those books to explain who he is and as a guidance for mankind and eternal punishment wait for those who are confused by the books?

[Grace Seeker]

This from a pastor?
What happened to the famous christians "love"?



I conclude that you go for personal because you failed to explain how god can inspire people to write books full of errors and contradictions, although god intends those books to explain who he is and as a guidance for mankind and eternal punishment wait for those who are confused by the books?

You failed to listen. I wasn't even addressing that accusation. (Done that many times before, do I need to again?) I was addressing the problem of translation that you had asked about. I had asserted that there will never be a perfect translation. You seemed to hear this as some sort of confession that there is something therefore wrong with Christianity and the Bible if a perfect translation cannot be produced. That simply isn't true, and I gave you a simple illustration as to why not. That illustration applies to all translations, the Qur'an as much as the Bible. In my experience you are smart enough to understand that. For you to pretend otherwise, as you did, means that you have quit asking for edification and are just playing games and attempting to make smart-aleck type remarks.

It is in fact a compassionate thing to tell you that such behavior is unbecoming so that you can stop before you make yourself look more the fool than you already have.

[Ramadhan]

You failed to listen. I wasn't even addressing that accusation. (Done that many times before, do I need to again?) I was addressing the problem of translation that you had asked about.

You did not address the problems of bible translations. In fact, you only attempted to make some ridiculous analogies which made light of the meanings of your own scriptures.

For example,
in NIV:
Revelation 1:11 "which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches ...""
KJV:
Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches ..."

and you make analogy of these translations differences as meaningless as "my house is your houses" vs "my house is your home"

And I countered that while "my house is your house" does not carry the same impact as a scripture verse where one translation asserts jesus is god while the other does not.

I mean, Are you not concerned that two different bible translations can be so different when it comes to the fundamentals/creed?
And here we are only comparing NIV and KJV. God knows how many bible versions out there today.

It is in fact a compassionate thing to tell you that such behavior is unbecoming so that you can stop before you make yourself look more the fool than you already have.

LOL. I am sorry that I laughed at this, but your statement actually reminds me of Bush' compassionate conservatism or whatever he was/is.

yeah, we are compassionate at you, but we are going to bomb you anyway, and annihilate the whole you folks!

[Hiroshi]

I mean, Are you not concerned that two different bible translations can be so different when it comes to the fundamentals/creed?
And here we are only comparing NIV and KJV. God knows how many bible versions out there today.

I am concerned. And I have spent years of research studying this in order to find the truth. I believe that I now have a clear picture of what the Bible says and teaches. And I can show this to others.

You however seem to show no interest at all in this matter beyond using it as ammunition to discredit the Bible.

[Ramadhan]

I am concerned. And I have spent years of research studying this in order to find the truth. I believe that I now have a clear picture of what the Bible says and teaches. And I can show this to others.

So for you, the truth is NIV?
KJV is no longer the truth?

You however seem to show no interest at all in this matter beyond using it as ammunition to discredit the Bible.

I am interested in uncovering and showing the truth, that's all.

[Hiroshi]

I am interested in uncovering and showing the truth, that's all.

That's good. So am I.

Acts 17:11 says: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Qur'an encourages the same thing. Surah 10:94 says: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee:"

Both passages encourage us to check what we learn against the Bible. How can you do that unless you examine the Bible for yourself?

[Ramadhan]

That's good. So am I.

How interesting, because you however seem to show no interest at all in this matter beyond going to anti islam sites using it as ammunition to discredit Islam since you joined this board.

Surah 10:94 says: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee:"

Oh, isn't this particular verse taken out of context popular among Islam haters? Did you even study the Quran and hadiths, hiroshi?
By the way, which anti Islam site do you go to pick and choose ayats and hadiths and come here thinking you can teach us muslims?
And you did not think at all that us muslims have memorized and understood the meanings of the quran verses from the time of Rasulullah SAW?
(contrast that to NT which were written by unknown authors hundred years after jesus left)

Here's the explanation of the verse:

the footnote to this ayah from The Meaning of the Qur'an by S.A Maududi, is:

"Though these words were addressed to the Holy Prophet, they were meant for those who expressed doubts about his Message. As regards the reference to the people of the Book, it is because they possessed the Knowledge of the Scriptures, whereas the common people of Arabia lacked this, and were, therefore, strangers to the voice of the Quran. It was also expected that their just and pious scholars would testify that its Message was the same as that of the Scriptures of the former Prophets (as many did)."

Translation by Muhsin Khan:

So if you (O Muhammad SAW) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it)[] (94)

obviously we will not be asking the people of the book to confirm every matter of the quran; the books contradict each other far too much, Allah also says the truth was revealed to muhammad saws so we dont need the other scriptures anyway. the translator here added the commentary about the prophecy of muhammad saws in the previous scripture, thats what the context of the verse is.

ie IF you are in DOUBT (ie believe the quran is not from Allah, muhammad saws is not a true prophet) then go back to the previous scripture. obviously differences and smililarities between the quran and bible on laws etc doesnt mean muhammad saws is a false or true prophet. however, if the bible predicts the coming of muhammad saws he must be a true prophet...

Tafseer Ibn Kathir says this:

الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِىَّ الأُمِّىَّ الَّذِى يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِى التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنجِيلِ

(Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written of with them in the Tawrah and the Injil.)(7:157)
They are as certain of this as they are about who their children are, yet they hide it and distort it. They did not believe in it despite its clear evidence.

also it stands to reason this ayat applies to us in the 21st century with the benefit of history. we can check biblical and quranic records of past events, the more accurate is therefore from God. eg the bible gets it wrong saying the whole world was submersed during the flood of nuh, the quran doesnt say the whole world was covered (this was mentioned in one of zakir naiks talks) im sure there are countless examples.

[Ramadhan]

Hiroshi, I have questions about JW:

1. your prophet charles taze russel predicted that Armageddon would occur in October 1914. What happened to the prediction?

2. He also predicted that the jesus 1,000 years reign would start in 1925. What happened to this also?

3. also what happened to the other many predictions by watchtower that did not materialize a single one??

[abdussattar]

edit....................

[aadil77]

Yes because Romans 6:23 (and many other Biblical statements) says: "The wages of sin is death."

again

since everyone will die at some point in their life, how is this punishment different for someone who was alot more/less sinful or not 'wicked' at all?

[Woodrow]

again

since everyone will die at some point in their life, how is this punishment different for someone who was alot more/less sinful or not 'wicked' at all?

I would like to expand upon that thought a step further. Why isn't that considered to be an incentive to seek only personal, materialistic, temporary pleasures on earth? Based on that concept it makes much more sense to live a live of abandonment and seek the guarantee of gaining worldly pleasures by any means possible. If you have no guarantee you will be one who wins eternal life, it makes more sense to seek that what you know you can attain through your own design. To me it makes no sense to create a human and give them logical reason to seek a life of debauchery, that is predestination as by that logic the better choice is to seek all the pleasures you know you can attain in the short time of your existence. It leads a person to seek the desire to end life in a mad cap fast paced grab at life with all the gusto possible and when the end comes for the person, they can in their last moment think,"Man that was one hell of a blast, glad I had the time for the ride"

There is no incentive or reason to do good. The concept of eternal life would be of value only to those with a very hedonistic attitude and an inflated concept of self worth. Now for fairness and justice it makes much more sense that we all would be created with an eternal part that does not die and we will always exist after being created. As a result our future will be determined on what we do, we all face an endless future and that future will be either one of joy or one of regret, based upon what we learn and do in this temporary classroom called life.

As a last thought this concept of dieth, ceasing to exist and then be recreated in a new form sounds very much like the Hindu belief of reincarnation. There is no continuity of a single life, it is death and reincarnation in it's simplest form.

[Grace Seeker]

As a last thought this concept of dieth, ceasing to exist and then be recreated in a new form sounds very much like the Hindu belief of reincarnation. There is no continuity of a single life, it is death and reincarnation in it's simplest form.

And again, I just ask those unfamiliar with JW teachings and who seem to mistakenly view them as just one among many different "Christian sects" to recognize that is yet one more illustration of how JWs do not fit the model of historic Christian teachings. And further, a point of view in which historic Christianity and Islam actually agree with each other and together disagree with JW interpretations of the Bible.

[Hiroshi]

It doesn't matter what the catholic encyclopedia says, considering it hasn't gone down to the etymology and the root of the words as Dr. Deedat has above, they are not anymore astray than you are.. 'to be' isn't god's name the Arabic version suppose that God uses the imperfect qal this is also crap since qal means 'he said' not 'to be' so it isn't any wonder to me that they worship a man if they can't get to the meaning of any word, you can take men for gods, guidance for spirits and God knows what else..

all the best

In his introduction to his translation of the Bible, J. B. Rotheram says this on page 26:
"Yahweh is almost always regarded as the third person, singular, masculine, imperfect tense, from the root hawah, an old form of the root hayah. The one meaning of hawah is "become." So that the force of yahweh thus derived, as a verb, would be "He will become"".

God actually explains the meaning of his name in Exodus 3:14. Moses has just asked: "surely they [the sons of Israel] will say unto me-- What is his name? What shall I say unto them?" God then replies: "I Will Become whatsoever I please".

The Israelites were suffering under the tyranny of the Egyptians as their slaves. They seemed to have no helper. But God here promised that he would become everything that they needed for their deliverance. And then, in a mighty way, God did rescue them and proved true to both his promise and his name.

[Hiroshi]

Do you realize that despite 2 "world wars" and what seems like countless other conflicts, that reality is there has actually been less war in the 20th and first decade of the 21st century than any other time in recorded history? There has also been less famine and pestilence. I can't speak to earthquakes comparing one century to another, but even with a couple of notable ones in the news this year, the 2010 seems to be an average year according to the USGS.

This link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ighereducation

says:

"The 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history. The total number of deaths caused by or associated with its wars has been estimated at 187m, the equivalent of more than 10% of the world's population in 1913. Taken as having begun in 1914, it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised armed conflict somewhere. It was dominated by world wars: that is to say, by wars between territorial states or alliances of states."


And a report from the Worldwatch Institute states: "Three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."

[Hiroshi]

again

since everyone will die at some point in their life, how is this punishment different for someone who was alot more/less sinful or not 'wicked' at all?

We all die because we all sin. But obviously some sin more wickedly than others. God purposes to help the not-so-bad sinners who genuinely try to do what is right along with others who may have lived their lives differently if that had been made aware of God's love. As a Christian I believe that the help that God has provided is the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, making it possible to remove sins completely. This in turn means that those who receive God's mercy can return to life in the resurrection.

[Woodrow]

We all die because we all sin. But obviously some sin more wickedly than others. God purposes to help the not-so-bad sinners who genuinely try to do what is right along with others who may have lived their lives differently if that had been made aware of God's love. As a Christian I believe that the help that God has provided is the ransom sacrifice of Jesus, making it possible to remove sins completely. This in turn means that those who receive God's mercy can return to life in the resurrection.

Who offered the sacrifice?

Who paid for the Sacrifice?

Who was the sacrifice made to?

Now I am getting more confused. a person is born lives his life dies, ceases to exist. Then later is rebuilt in a new body and basically is not the same person who died. This period of ceasing to exist removes it from ever being the awakening of a sleeping person, this rebuilding from a memory is the creation of a new person no matter how you look at it. This is not resurrection it is a new creation. You do not have a resurrection you have the building of a doppelganger who now has the same thoughts and memory of the person who died, it is not the same person. That period of removal from existence has made it impossible for the person to be resurrected. A new person has been built. You have no resurrection, you have a new creation. The thought of cessation of existence has removed all continuity and eliminated the concept of resurrection. There can be no resurrection, without the existence of an immortal soul.

I know you will say "God(swt) can do all things" which I agree with. But this statement can be carried to ridiculous ends and become nothing more then utter nonsense disguised as profound thought. For centuries philosophers have discussed arguments such as "Can God(swt) create an object too heavy for him to lift?" (if he can then he is not all powerful as his creation would be greater then he, if he can't he is not omnipotent as he can not do everything) Utter nonsense discussed by pseudo-intellectuals to sound as if they are part of the intelligensia Humanae.

This teaching of ceasing to exist and being rebuilt removes any reason for a person to obey God(swt) as the end result is that at some point they are going to cease to exist. They are not going to be resurrected. they have died and ceased to be. The new creation is not them, even it the new creation believes it is and has the same memories.

[Hiroshi]

The sacrifice was made in order to satisfy God's own requirements of divine justice. Jesus' obedience to death also gave a perfect answer to Satan's taunting accusation that none of God's servants would choose to remain loyal to God when faced with trials.

Who offered the sacrifice?

Jesus willingly offered himself.

Who paid for the Sacrifice?

Jesus paid the price (his life).

Who was the sacrifice made to?

God.

[Hiroshi]

Now I am getting more confused. a person is born lives his life dies, ceases to exist. Then later is rebuilt in a new body and basically is not the same person who died. This period of ceasing to exist removes it from ever being the awakening of a sleeping person, this rebuilding from a memory is the creation of a new person no matter how you look at it. This is not resurrection it is a new creation. You do not have a resurrection you have the building of a doppelganger who now has the same thoughts and memory of the person who died, it is not the same person. That period of removal from existence has made it impossible for the person to be resurrected. A new person has been built. You have no resurrection, you have a new creation. The thought of cessation of existence has removed all continuity and eliminated the concept of resurrection. There can be no resurrection, without the existence of an immortal soul.

Well, I have read a number of accounts in the Qur'an where unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life. But The assurance is then given that he can. And this is never on the basis of man having an immortal soul. The Qur'an nowhere speaks of an immortal soul.

[GreyKode]

Jesus paid the price (his life).

If someone else had offered his life would that have satified the sacrifice?

[Woodrow]

The sacrifice was made in order to satisfy God's own requirements of divine justice. Jesus' obedience to death also gave a perfect answer to Satan's taunting accusation that none of God's servants would choose to remain loyal to God when faced with trials.

In other words you believe justice was obtained by Jesus(as) bribing God(swt) with his life?

Jesus willingly offered himself.

He had the right to commit suicide by proxy? What gave Jesus(as) the right to offer himself as a sacrifice?

Jesus paid the price (his life).

Then why do people still have to obey Gos(swt). the price was paid. No further need for humans to worship God(swt).

[جوري]

In his introduction to his translation of the Bible, J. B. Rotheram says this on page 26:
"Yahweh is almost always regarded as the third person, singular, masculine, imperfect tense, from the root hawah, an old form of the root hayah. The one meaning of hawah is "become." So that the force of yahweh thus derived, as a verb, would be "He will become"".

God actually explains the meaning of his name in Exodus 3:14. Moses has just asked: "surely they [the sons of Israel] will say unto me-- What is his name? What shall I say unto them?" God then replies: "I Will Become whatsoever I please".

The Israelites were suffering under the tyranny of the Egyptians as their slaves. They seemed to have no helper. But God here promised that he would become everything that they needed for their deliverance. And then, in a mighty way, God did rescue them and proved true to both his promise and his name.

indeed third person for 'he' not to become-- we can go over this extensively but we'll get nowhere given that you have NO/ZERO knowledge of Semitic languages! ..
it is interesting that 'oh he' helped those enslaved Israelite and in return they stole Egyptian gold and then used it to build a golden calf which they took for their god, upon which they not only incurred god's wrath but were lost in a small stretch of land for nearly half a century.. compare that with the dissolution of a 300 year old mighty Persian empire in exactly 19 days to Islam.. Surely if God loved a people and favored them, they'd not only be taken pagan idols for worship but they wouldn't be lost either for a prolonged period of time aimless and purposeless.. God helps those who are faithful and those who walk aright!

Only Islam offers that!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

And a report from the Worldwatch Institute states: "Three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."

Well, you are one up on me in being able to find your sources. But I have heard/read what I reported from legitimate sources as well. Should I stumble across it again, I will try to remember this thread to share it with you.

[Grace Seeker]

The sacrifice was made in order to satisfy God's own requirements of divine justice. Jesus' obedience to death also gave a perfect answer to Satan's taunting accusation that none of God's servants would choose to remain loyal to God when faced with trials.

Jesus willingly offered himself.

Jesus paid the price (his life).

[to] God.

You almost sound like Martin Luther here. Though I honestly think that Luther took Anselm's arguments a bit too far.

[Woodrow]

Well, I have read a number of accounts in the Qur'an where unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life. But The assurance is then given that he can. And this is never on the basis of man having an immortal soul. The Qur'an nowhere speaks of an immortal soul.

Off hand I can not recall if or how many times it is stated that "unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life" but that does make sense. I think it would be safe to assume many unbelievers do believe that.

Now about your claim the soul not being mentioned in the Qur'an------ one example:

23. The Believers (Al-Müminün) 103. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.

Looking back at the history of the Abrahamic teachings I believe you will find that the belief in an eternal soul was and still is believed by the Jews. This would have been a very common belief, well known and taught in the synagogues at the the time Jesus(as) walked the streets of Jerusalem. If that is a wrong teaching, doesn't it make sense that at some point Jesus(as) would have addressed this belief and corrected it? No where is it shown that Jesus(as) disagreed with this belief of an immortal soul.

[GreyKode]

Off hand I can not recall if or how many times it is stated that "unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life" but that does make sense. I think it would be safe to assume many unbelievers do believe that.

Correction brother Woodrow. It is mentioned several times. This was a main point of contention with the pagans of Quraish and something that even non-beleivers of today doubt about .

For example surah Qaf about the fourth or fifth ayah.

[Woodrow]

Correction brother Woodrow. It is mentioned several times. This was a main point of contention with the pagans of Quraish and something that even non-beleivers of today doubt about .

For example surah Qaf about the fourth or fifth ayah.

I was quite certain I had read so in the Qur'an. But was uncertain as to in what Surahs. I posted as I did to avoid making an error. Jazakalluh Khairan for the verification, you are correct.

From Surah 50 al-Qaf

2. Nay, they wonder that there has come to them a warner (Muhammad ) from among themselves. So the disbelievers say: "This is a strange thing!

3. "When we are dead and have become dust (shall we be resurrected?) That is a far return."

4. We know that which the earth takes of them (their dead bodies), and with Us is a Book preserved (i.e. the Book of Decrees).

5. Nay, but they have denied the truth (this Qur'an) when it has come to them, so they are in a confused state (can not differentiate between right and wrong).

6. Have they not looked at the heaven above them, how We have made it and adorned it, and there are no rifts in it?

7. And the earth! We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and have produced therein every kind of lovely growth (plants).

8. An insight and a Reminder for every slave turning to Allah (i.e. the one who believes in Allah and performs deeds of His obedience, and always begs His pardon).

9. And We send down blessed water (rain) from the sky, then We produce therewith gardens and grain (every kind of harvests) that are reaped.

10. And tall date-palms, with ranged clusters;

11. A provision for (Allah's) slaves. And We give life therewith to a dead land. Thus will be the resurrection (of the dead).

12. Denied before them (i.e. these pagans of Makkah who denied you, O Muhammad ) the people of Nuh (Noah), and the dwellers of Rass, and the Thamud,

13. And 'Ad, and Fir'aun (Pharaoh), and the brethren of Lout (Lot),

[Grace Seeker]

So, Woodrow, what have you learned of JWs from Hiroshi?

There a many Muslims on this board who speak of JWs as if they were just another Christian sect. There are Muslims who speak of JWs as if they were somehow a remnant believing what Muslims conceptualize the first generations of disciples to have taught. I've been ridiculed when I've objected to either portrayal as not consistent with the facts. Now that you have more facts than before, what say you?

Are JWs just another Christian sect?

Do JWs believe what you understand Jesus' disciples would have taught?

Or are they really something unique of their own creation fitting poorly into historical consonance with any prior faith community?

[Woodrow]

So, Woodrow, what have you learned of JWs from Hiroshi?

There a many Muslims on this board who speak of JWs as if they were just another Christian sect. There are Muslims who speak of JWs as if they were somehow a remnant believing what Muslims conceptualize the first generations of disciples to have taught. I've been ridiculed when I've objected to either portrayal as not consistent with the facts. Now that you have more facts than before, what say you?

Are JWs just another Christian sect?

Do JWs believe what you understand Jesus' disciples would have taught?

Or are they really something unique of their own creation fitting poorly into historical consonance with any prior faith community?

Peace Gene,

Out of kindness and to avoid having to ban myself I will only say is JWs are not part of any other religious group and are a very recent innovation. They definitely are not Christian in the concept of what I understand Christianity to be. While I do disagree with Christianity, I do not think it is right to compare JWs with Christianity. It is an error to categorize JWs as Christians. I do disagree with JWs but for different reasons than I disagree with Christians.

[Grace Seeker]

Thank-you, Woodrow, for simply and directly answering the question. I didn't expect you to give up your objections to Christianity. I suspect we will continue to debate that for a long time to come. But I just might bookmark and save the other portion of your comment:

They [JWs] definitely are not Christian in the concept of what I understand Christianity to be. While I do disagree with Christianity, I do not think it is right to compare JWs with Christianity. It is an error to categorize JWs as Christians.

[Hiroshi]

If someone else had offered his life would that have satified the sacrifice?

Only if that "someone else" had no sin. Otherwise the person would have to die for their own sins anyway.

[Hiroshi]

indeed third person for 'he' not to become-- we can go over this extensively but we'll get nowhere given that you have NO/ZERO knowledge of Semitic languages! ..

Most translations of the Bible do not render Exodus 3:14 as: "I Will Become" or similar but rather as "I Am" copying the King James. You know why? It is because Jesus says: "I am" at John 8:58 and trinitarians try to make it seem that he was quoting Exodus 3:14 and claiming to be God.

it is interesting that 'oh he' helped those enslaved Israelite and in return they stole Egyptian gold and then used it to build a golden calf which they took for their god, upon which they not only incurred god's wrath but were lost in a small stretch of land for nearly half a century.. compare that with the dissolution of a 300 year old mighty Persian empire in exactly 19 days to Islam.. Surely if God loved a people and favored them, they'd not only be taken pagan idols for worship but they wouldn't be lost either for a prolonged period of time aimless and purposeless.. God helps those who are faithful and those who walk aright!

Only Islam offers that!

all the best

God surely became disgusted with the Israelites at that time.

[Amat Allah]

Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Yes Abraham is already in hell. Even Jesus went to hell when he died. Acts 2:27 KJV says (speaking of Jesus): "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" and Acts 2:31 KJV says: "his soul was not left in hell". Jesus went to hell (as we all will) but he was not left there. The dead come out of hell in the resurrection. Revelation 20:13 KJV says: "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them". Hell means "the grave" in all of these scriptures. We all go to our grave..

Originally Posted by Hiroshi
The "soul" is the person. When the person dies he becomes a dead soul. The Bible often refers to a dead body as a dead soul. The wording of Acts 2:27 "you will not leave my soul in hell" refers to a dead body (soul) in the grave (hell).

this is so confusing ...Sub`haan Allah...hell means grave and soul means body...

would you please explain for me, why to call the grave (hell)?

Was Abraham a believer? Yes he was, of course.

What was Abraham's calling? What do you want me to say? He was a prophet. He was called "Jehovah's friend". He had unshakeable faith. And he was the father of great nations thanks to a miracle of God, giving him a son in his old age

yes, but I really wanted you to tell me what was his message ...

Do you believe that God come to earth in a human form?(Astagfero Allah Al Atheem )...

From what did God create Adam? was Adam in Paradise?and how did Adam come to earth?(peace be upon him)

Why do Christians call themselves Christians? and do you consider yourself a Christian?

Thank you my brother for your patience and kindness...

[Hiroshi]

Off hand I can not recall if or how many times it is stated that "unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life" but that does make sense. I think it would be safe to assume many unbelievers do believe that.

Now about your claim the soul not being mentioned in the Qur'an------ one example:

23. The Believers (Al-Müminün) 103. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.

Surah 23:103 says:
But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.
Waman khaffat mawazeenuhu faola-ikaallatheena khasiroo anfusahum fee jahannama khalidoona


Now Insaanah has severely chided me for citing a verse that says "every soul shall taste death" because the Arabic word for "soul" in that verse was "nafs" when she said it had to be "ruh".

Are you sure that "anfusahum" here doesn't just mean "persons" rather than "spirits"?

[جوري]

the definition of Nafs vs. rooh was given to you by my person with a link to the dictionary for your convenience. Would you like us to render a meaning that caters better to your personal beliefs?

[Hiroshi]

the definition of Nafs vs. rooh was given to you by my person with a link to the dictionary for your convenience. Would you like us to render a meaning that caters better to your personal beliefs?

If you and your dictionary disagree with Insaanah why are you complaining to me?

[جوري]

If you and your dictionary disagree with Insaanah why are you complaining to me?

maybe you can show me how me and my dictionary disagree with Sr. Insaanah?

all the best

[Hiroshi]

maybe you can show me how me and my dictionary disagree with Sr. Insaanah?

all the best

Maybe you can. She said in her wisdom:

Hiroshi, I am just entering this thread quickly, with no intention of further replies to any of your posts, to say that the ignorance and arrogance that you are currently displaying, is staggering. Are you here to learn about Islam, or to teach us it? If the latter, then I don't need to say the words. If the former, then please dispense with your pearls of wisdom. They are not needed or wanted. Please do not tell us we are wrong without having knowledge of our religion, the language of our book and everything else. The Arabic word used is nafs. This word is used for mainly person, and self, mainly in the plural, all over the Qur'an, as anfus, mainly as anfusakum, meaning yourselves. Ruh is the word used for the soul which is in the body. The way the word "soul" is used in this translation is for a person, eg when you say to someone, "Oh, you're such a good soul" - everyone knows that is referring to the person.


And you know, I am sure that she is absolutely right.

But now Woodrow has quoted a verse which says:
Surah 23:103
But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.
Waman khaffat mawazeenuhu faola-ikaallatheena khasiroo anfusahum fee jahannama khalidoona

So if "anfusakum" means "persons" or "yourselves" as Insaanah explains, then Surah 23:103 is simply saying that these ones have lost themselves or are lost (which makes perfect sense here). It doesn't say that they have immortal souls. Am I right?

[GreyKode]

Maybe you can. She said in her wisdom:

Hiroshi, I am just entering this thread quickly, with no intention of further replies to any of your posts, to say that the ignorance and arrogance that you are currently displaying, is staggering. Are you here to learn about Islam, or to teach us it? If the latter, then I don't need to say the words. If the former, then please dispense with your pearls of wisdom. They are not needed or wanted. Please do not tell us we are wrong without having knowledge of our religion, the language of our book and everything else. The Arabic word used is nafs. This word is used for mainly person, and self, mainly in the plural, all over the Qur'an, as anfus, mainly as anfusakum, meaning yourselves. Ruh is the word used for the soul which is in the body. The way the word "soul" is used in this translation is for a person, eg when you say to someone, "Oh, you're such a good soul" - everyone knows that is referring to the person.


And you know, I am sure that she is absolutely right.

But now Woodrow has quoted a verse which says:
Surah 23:103
But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.
Waman khaffat mawazeenuhu faola-ikaallatheena khasiroo anfusahum fee jahannama khalidoona

So if "anfusakum" means "persons" or "yourselves" as Insaanah explains, then Surah 23:103 is simply saying that these ones have lost themselves or are lost (which makes perfect sense here). It doesn't say that they have immortal souls. Am I right?

I really can't see any problem here.

Since hell is eternal then those who enter into hell have lost both themselves and souls

[Hiroshi]

I really can't see any problem here.

Since hell is eternal then those who enter into hell have lost both themselves and souls

My original point was that the Qur'an nowhere says that the soul is immortal. Rather it teaches, as the Bible does, that there will be a resurrection of the dead. The dead only enter the hell of the Qur'an after the resurrection. And I cannot see any passage in the Qur'an that says that the dead are conscious until the resurrection.

Now Woodrow is using Surah 23:103 to prove that we have immortal souls. But all it says is that these ones in hell are lost.

[GreyKode]

Now Woodrow is using Surah 23:103 to prove that we have immortal souls. But all it says is that these ones in hell are lost.

Yes and I agree with his conclusion that this ayah serves as evidence, since the soul/self is truly lost when one goes to hell, since that will be for eternity.

Besides, I have seen you in the past using the ahadith as evidence, what happened now?. There is more detail about this issue in ahadith, and several ahadith confirm that the soul is eternal till judgement day.

[Hiroshi]

this is so confusing ...Sub`haan Allah...hell means grave and soul means body...

would you please explain for me, why to call the grave (hell)?




yes, but I really wanted you to tell me what was his message ...

Do you believe that God come to earth in a human form?(Astagfero Allah Al Atheem )...

From what did God create Adam? was Adam in Paradise?and how did Adam come to earth?(peace be upon him)

Why do Christians call themselves Christians? and do you consider yourself a Christian?

Thank you my brother for your patience and kindness...

The original English meaning of "hell" is a verb meaning "to cover". It thus suggests a hidden or covered place and corresponds well to the Greek word "hades" which is believed to mean "unseen place". In the KJV, "hades" is translated ten times as "hell" and once as "grave" at 1 Corinthians 15:55.

Abraham was a prophet and through him God made many things known. What do you want me to mention?

No, God did not come to the earth in human form.

1 Corinthians 15:47 says that Adam "is out of the earth and made of dust". The Greek Septuagint at Genesis 2:8 calls Adam's home a "paradise" in Eden. From that place flowed four rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates (Genesis 2:14). These are known rivers on earth so obviously the paradise was on earth not in heaven. After they sinned Adam and Eve were driven out of paradise but remained on earth where they had been created.

And the Bible itself calls the followers of Jesus "Christians" at Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.

[Hiroshi]

Yes and I agree with his conclusion that this ayah serves as evidence, since the soul/self is truly lost when one goes to hell, since that will be for eternity.

Besides, I have seen you in the past using the ahadith as evidence, what happened now?. There is more detail about this issue in ahadith, and several ahadith confirm that the soul is eternal till judgement day.

All I wanted to check was that the Qur'an definitely does not speak of consciousness after death (until the resurrection). But by contrast, as you point out, the ahadith does. I have read accounts in them of the dead in their graves awaiting resurrection and suffering if they are wicked but existing in comfort if they are righteous.

[جوري]

Maybe you can. She said in her wisdom:

As stated perhaps you can show me where I have said something at odds with Sr. Insaanah without adding your own spin to either meaning!
I expect a quote from my person, juxtaposed on one of hers with you pointing out the disparate and gross errors!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

My original point was that the Qur'an nowhere says that the soul is immortal. Rather it teaches, as the Bible does, that there will be a resurrection of the dead.

I'll not ask for your interpretation of the Qur'an but of the Bible. Is it your understanding that the Bible teaches a resurrection of the dead, but that it does NOT teach that the soul is immortal?

[GreyKode]

All I wanted to check was that the Qur'an definitely does not speak of consciousness after death (until the resurrection). But by contrast, as you point out, the ahadith does. I have read accounts in them of the dead in their graves awaiting resurrection and suffering if they are wicked but existing in comfort if they are righteous.

You are wrong.

Surah al anfal (50-54) and surah al an'am (93-94)

[Insaanah]

All I wanted to check was that the Qur'an definitely does not speak of consciousness after death (until the resurrection).

It does.

"And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." (2:154)

"Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision.

Jubilant (are they) because of that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those who have not joined them but are left behind: That there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

They rejoice because of favour from Allah and kindness, and that Allah wasteth not the wage of the believers." (3:169-171)

the ahadith does. I have read accounts in them of the dead in their graves awaiting resurrection and suffering if they are wicked but existing in comfort if they are righteous.

Yes. See above also.

Peace.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Amat Allah]

The original English meaning of "hell" is a verb meaning "to cover". It thus suggests a hidden or covered place and corresponds well to the Greek word "hades" which is believed to mean "unseen place". In the KJV, "hades" is translated ten times as "hell" and once as "grave" at 1 Corinthians 15:55..

in a Christian source I read this:



HELL In common usage, this term refers to the place of future punishment for the wicked. The word properly translated “hell” in the New Testament is the Greek Geenna or Gehenna, a place in the Valley of Hinnom where human sacrifices had been offered and where continuous burning of rubbish made it an apt illustration of the eternal lake of fire (cf. Matt. 5:22). Other words like sheol or hades are improperly translated by this term.

SHEOL The general idea of this word is “the place of the dead” including the grave (cf. Num. 16:30,33; Ps. 16:10), and the unseen place of those who have departed from this life, the place of departed spirits of both the righteous (Gen. 37:35) and the wicked (Prov. 9:18).

HADES This word is basically the New Testament counterpart of the Sheol. It refers to the unseen world in general, but specifically to the abode of the unsaved dead between death and the final judgment at the great white throne (cf. Lk. 16:23 and Rev. 20:11-15).It differs from hell in that it is temporary while hell is permanent.


http://bible.org/question/what-does-...descended-hell


the matter is still confusing...subhaan Allah...

Abraham was a prophet and through him God made many things known. What do you want me to mention?

His message which Allah sent him with ..the pure purpose of sending Messengers and Prophets (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) this is what I wanted you to mention, my respected brother...it is really simple Q and I don`t know how to explain it for you more than that...with all my respect,I am really sorry...

1 Corinthians 15:47 says that Adam "is out of the earth and made of dust". The Greek Septuagint at Genesis 2:8 calls Adam's home a "paradise" in Eden. From that place flowed four rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates (Genesis 2:14). These are known rivers on earth so obviously the paradise was on earth not in heaven. After they sinned Adam and Eve were driven out of paradise but remained on earth where they had been created.

ok, you said before :

Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15. So he is the first created being. He existed in heaven with God before coming to earth by being born through Mary. The Bible repeatedly calls Jesus (and some others) "Son of God".

As I understood from your words; Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not from the sons of Adam, right?

At what age Jesus was; when he was with God in heavens? do you know? was he a baby or an adult? was he in a human form ?

Why to say Jesus is the son of God while you said that Allah created him (is he a creature of God or His son?)...are we the sons and daughters of God since He created us? and are all the creatures of God His sons and daughters? and if Jesus is the son of God then why not worshipping him with God? ...Praise Be To Allah and High Be He ,Exalted and Raised far above...


and another Q that I really want to know its answer; according to the Christianity and the bible ;are all the Muslims (who died not believing that Jesus is the son of God) going to hell (or let me say Jahannam to not confuse you ;as you believe that hell means grave) ?

[Grace Seeker]

and another Q that I really want to know its answer; according to the Christianity and the bible ;are all the Muslims (who died not believing that Jesus is the son of God) going to hell (or let me say Jahannam to not confuse you ;as you believe that hell means grave) ?

Just a reminder, that while Hiroshi identifies himself as a Christian, he also denies that pretty much all the rest of us who you know as Christians or who have identified themselves as Christian throughout history (including most likely the others of that Christian book you quoted) are genuinely Christian. So, when he gives you his answer to this question, remember that his answer may be different from that which is going to be given from someone who comes from one of the historically Christian faith communities that Hiroshi would not recognize as Christian.

[Amat Allah]

Thank you my respecetd brother for the reminder, I`ll put it in my mind while reading Hiroshi brother reply in shaa Allah...

May Allah give you the best of this life and of the hereafter Ameeeeen

leaving you under Allah`s sight...

[Ramadhan]

Hiroshi, I am afraid you missed my previous questions, so here's I am posting them again:

Hiroshi, I have questions about JW:

1. your prophet charles taze russel predicted that Armageddon would occur in October 1914. What happened to the prediction?

2. He also predicted that the jesus 1,000 years reign would start in 1925. What happened to this also?

3. also what happened to the other many predictions by watchtower that did not materialize a single one??

[Hiroshi]

I'll not ask for your interpretation of the Qur'an but of the Bible. Is it your understanding that the Bible teaches a resurrection of the dead, but that it does NOT teach that the soul is immortal?

Yes. In fact, immortality is given to God's servants as a reward. This proves that they do not have immortality already.

1 Corinthians 15:53-54 shows righteous ones receiving immortality at their resurrection as a reward: "For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory.""

And Romans 6:9 shows that Jesus was rewarded with immortality also at his resurrection: "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him."

Also 1 Timothy 6:16 speaks of Jesus "who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

And Hebrews 7:16 says that Jesus now has an indestructible life: "one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life."

[Hiroshi]

in a Christian source I read this:



HELL In common usage, this term refers to the place of future punishment for the wicked. The word properly translated “hell” in the New Testament is the Greek Geenna or Gehenna, a place in the Valley of Hinnom where human sacrifices had been offered and where continuous burning of rubbish made it an apt illustration of the eternal lake of fire (cf. Matt. 5:22). Other words like sheol or hades are improperly translated by this term.

There is much to say and explain on this subject.

But I strongly disagree that sheol and hades are improperly translated by this term. By far most of the translations that I have checked translate "hades" as "hell" at least at Luke 16:23.

Wikipedia says this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell

"The modern English word Hell is derived from Old English hel, helle (about 725 AD to refer to a nether world of the dead) reaching into the Anglo-Saxon pagan period, and ultimately from Proto-Germanic *halja, meaning "one who covers up or hides something". The word has cognates in related Germanic languages such as Old Frisian helle, hille, Old Saxon hellja, Middle Dutch helle (modern Dutch hel), Old High German helle (Modern German Hölle), Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "helvede"/helvete (hel + Old Norse vitti, "punishment"), and Gothic halja. Subsequently, the word was used to transfer a pagan concept to Christian theology and its vocabulary".


The idea of a place of torment for the wicked after death is a pagan concept but has become a strong belief in many churches. Obviously those who would promote this idea of a place of torment, object to using the term "hell" where the context simply means "the grave".

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I am afraid you missed my previous questions, so here's I am posting them again:

Hiroshi, I have questions about JW:

1. your prophet charles taze russel predicted that Armageddon would occur in October 1914. What happened to the prediction?

2. He also predicted that the jesus 1,000 years reign would start in 1925. What happened to this also?

3. also what happened to the other many predictions by watchtower that did not materialize a single one??

I apologize for not responding the first time. I get lots of questions and sometimes I miss one or two. I am glad that you draw this to my attention and I hope others will likewise repeat their posts where I haven't responded due to an oversight.

These questions may have come from an anti-Jehovah's Witness website of which there are a great many.

Based on Bible prophecy, we predicted since the 1870s that God's kingdom would begin ruling in 1914. Since that time many visible signs having to do with the coming of God's kingdom have been seen. For example, Luke 21:10-11 and Like 21:31 foretold that there would be a great worldwide increase in wars, famine, earthquakes and diseases and this has taken place. This gives evidence that the calculation of the date of 1914 was correct.

However, it was also expected that these troubles that were predicted would escalate into Armageddon and that did not happen immediately. JWs do not claim to be infallible. They have made mistakes in the past, particularly in the early days, and have had to correct their thinking accordingly.

One notable prediction announced by Nathan Knorr, a one time president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, was that the League of Nations would return after it vanished into oblivion with the outbreak of World War 2 (based on Revelation 17:8). The prediction came true. That organisation returned under the new name of the United Nations.

[Grace Seeker]

Yes. In fact, immortality is given to God's servants as a reward. This proves that they do not have immortality already.

Now, pardon me, but I'm going to put words in your mouth for you to affirm or spit out as not representing you.

So, you would say that we are all born with a soul (not as souls, but with souls), but that soul is NOT immortal. Then we die and the soul dies. Then we are resurrected, but not with the same body but a different body, yet it is still us. And then that body is given a soul which is immortal as a reward.

If that's right, I've got half a dozen question for you, but let's make sure I've got what you believe right first, before I question it.

[Woodrow]

For the purpose of pointing something out. Let us assume that Humans do not have an immortal soul. Now based on that assumption at death we are totally obliterated, but at the resurrection the righteous are recreated in an immortal form. Now I agree that God(swt) can do anything so for sake of argument let us assume that is correct.

Now the peroblem I see with that is how are they both the same person as you are stating they are 2 separate creations and not even identical except in terms of memory. They are 2 separate beings, existing at 2 different times. By definition they are not the same being. You are alleging that 2 separate creations are the same creation. While God(swt) can do anything, there are statements and thoughts we humans make/have that are utter nonsense and actually have nothing to do with the abilities of God(swt). This seems to be such a statement. In no way would they be the same as there is no continuity. This makes as much sense as saying God(swt) can draw a triangle, erase it and redraw it as a circle and have it be the same triangle that was erased. Nonsensical statements are not an indication of the limitless power of God(swt). It is not that God(swt) can not do something, it is a simple fact we humans can think of non-things and ascribe them as being something that God(swt) can/can't do. That is in the same realm as saying God(swt) can create another God(swt) who would be the only God(swt) eternal with no begining having always been, always will be and was not created nor born. It is utter nonsense to even contemplate the thought.

[Hiroshi]

Now, pardon me, but I'm going to put words in your mouth for you to affirm or spit out as not representing you.

So, you would say that we are all born with a soul (not as souls, but with souls), but that soul is NOT immortal. Then we die and the soul dies. Then we are resurrected, but not with the same body but a different body, yet it is still us. And then that body is given a soul which is immortal as a reward.

If that's right, I've got half a dozen question for you, but let's make sure I've got what you believe right first, before I question it.

Genesis 2:7 says: "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
And 1 Corinthians 15:45 says: "The first man Adam was made a living soul".

These verses do not say that man was given a soul. They say that he "became" or "was made" a soul. Man doesn't receive a soul. He is a soul.

Having said that though, the term "soul" can be used in a way where it means the life of the person. For example Genesis 35:18 KJV reads: "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) ..." But the New International Version reads: "As she breathed her last—for she was dying ..." The "departing" of the soul here might be misunderstood to mean that the soul leaves the body and continues conscious existence in a spirit realm. But that isn't what this expression means (notice carefully the NIV rendering). It is simply a way of saying that Rachel lost her life.

[Grace Seeker]

Genesis 2:7 says: "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
And 1 Corinthians 15:45 says: "The first man Adam was made a living soul".

These verses do not say that man was given a soul. They say that he "became" or "was made" a soul. Man doesn't receive a soul. He is a soul.

Having said that though, the term "soul" can be used in a way where it means the life of the person. For example Genesis 35:18 KJV reads: "And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) ..." But the New International Version reads: "As she breathed her last—for she was dying ..." The "departing" of the soul here might be misunderstood to mean that the soul leaves the body and continues conscious existence in a spirit realm. But that isn't what this expression means (notice carefully the NIV rendering). It is simply a way of saying that Rachel lost her life.

Fine, but you didn't really answer my question. (Or, maybe in your mind it does, but I don't yet understand how it does.)

I didn't say that you said we are all given a soul. I want to know if we are all born with a soul? Or are we all born as souls? And can you explain the difference between those two statements? Thanks.

[Hiroshi]

Fine, but you didn't really answer my question. (Or, maybe in your mind it does, but I don't yet understand how it does.)

I didn't say that you said we are all given a soul. I want to know if we are all born with a soul? Or are we all born as souls? And can you explain the difference between those two statements? Thanks.

Yes, humans are born as souls. Animals are also born as souls. Revelation 16:3 KJV says: "every living soul died in the sea" referring to sea creatures.

If you say that we are "born with a soul" it gives the impression that we are made up of two parts: body and soul. This is not the picture that the Bible gives. Rather, it refers to the soul as the whole person.

[Hiroshi]

For the purpose of pointing something out. Let us assume that Humans do not have an immortal soul. Now based on that assumption at death we are totally obliterated, but at the resurrection the righteous are recreated in an immortal form. Now I agree that God(swt) can do anything so for sake of argument let us assume that is correct.

Now the peroblem I see with that is how are they both the same person as you are stating they are 2 separate creations and not even identical except in terms of memory. They are 2 separate beings, existing at 2 different times. By definition they are not the same being. You are alleging that 2 separate creations are the same creation. While God(swt) can do anything, there are statements and thoughts we humans make/have that are utter nonsense and actually have nothing to do with the abilities of God(swt). This seems to be such a statement. In no way would they be the same as there is no continuity. This makes as much sense as saying God(swt) can draw a triangle, erase it and redraw it as a circle and have it be the same triangle that was erased. Nonsensical statements are not an indication of the limitless power of God(swt). It is not that God(swt) can not do something, it is a simple fact we humans can think of non-things and ascribe them as being something that God(swt) can/can't do. That is in the same realm as saying God(swt) can create another God(swt) who would be the only God(swt) eternal with no begining having always been, always will be and was not created nor born. It is utter nonsense to even contemplate the thought.

Okay. I assume that you believe that animals do not have immortal souls. Based on what you say here then, it would be completely impossible for God ever to restore an animal to life. Is this correct?

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, humans are born as souls. Animals are also born as souls. Revelation 16:3 KJV says: "every living soul died in the sea" referring to sea creatures.

If you say that we are "born with a soul" it gives the impression that we are made up of two parts: body and soul. This is not the picture that the Bible gives. Rather, it refers to the soul as the whole person.

Are soul and body, therefore, to be understood as inseparable?

[Hiroshi]

As stated perhaps you can show me where I have said something at odds with Sr. Insaanah without adding your own spin to either meaning!
I expect a quote from my person, juxtaposed on one of hers with you pointing out the disparate and gross errors!

all the best

Look, what exactly are we arguing about here? We both agree that "nafs" in Arabic means "soul" in the sense of the self or the person, right? That is all that I have been saying all along. I don't follow everything that you say and I really don't see what the problem is.

[جوري]

Look, what exactly are we arguing about here? We both agree that "nafs" in Arabic means "soul" in the sense of the self or the person, right? That is all that I have been saying all along. I don't follow everything that you say and I really don't see what the problem is.

I never agreed with you that nafs = soul. go back and look at the extensive definitions given as well the link provided you.
You don't see a problem, yet you have raised the problem and are unable to extricate yourself from your erroneous beliefs at least as far as Islam is concerned, insist on bull, and when all else fails, come a few pages later and decide that two Muslim members are at odds, yet unable to evince it from what has been written by both members.

If you can't follow and don't understand, then don't cover it all with nonsense with hopes that someone won't go double check it!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

I never agreed with you that nafs = soul.

Well, again and again the English versions of the Qur'an translate "nafs" as "soul". So how is that?

[جوري]

Well, again and again the English versions of the Qur'an translate "nafs" as "soul". So how is that?

Take that out with those said translators not a native Arabic speaker!

all the best

[جوري]

here is wiki if the Arabic sites weren't to your fancy:

Nafs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nafs is an Arabic word derived from the Hebrew word "Nefesh" נפש occurring in the Qur'an meaning self, psyche,[1] ego or soul. In its unrefined state, "the ego (nafs) is the lowest dimension of man's inward existence, his animal and satanic nature."[2] Nafs is an important concept in the Islamic tradition, especially within Sufism and the discipline of gnosis (Irfan) in Shia Islam.
Contents

[hide]

• 1 Three principal stages of nafs
  
  • 1.1 The inciting nafs (nafs-i-ammara)
  • 1.2 The self-accusing nafs (nafs-i-lawwama)
  • 1.3 The nafs at peace (nafs-i-mutma'inna)
• 2 Four additional stages of nafs
  
  • 2.1 The inspired nafs (nafs-i-mulhama)
  • 2.2 The pleased nafs (nafs-i-radiyya)
  • 2.3 The pleasing nafs (nafs-i-mardiyya)
  • 2.4 The pure nafs (nafs-i-safiyya)
• 3 Characteristics of nafs
• 4 See also
• 5 Notes
• 6 References
• 7 External links

[edit] Three principal stages of nafs

There are three principal stages of nafs which are specifically mentioned in the Qur'an. They are stages in the process of development, refinement and mastery of the nafs.[3][4]
[edit] The inciting nafs (nafs-i-ammara)

In its primitive stage the nafs incites us to commit evil: this is the nafs as the lower self, the base instincts.[5] In the eponymous Sura of the Qur’an, the prophet Joseph says "Yet I claim not that my nafs was innocent: Verily the nafs of man incites to evil."[Qur'an 12:53] Here he is explaining the circumstances in which he came to be falsely imprisoned for the supposed seduction of Zuleika.
Islam emphasises the importance of fighting nafs because the prophet Muhammad said after returning from a war, "We now return from the small struggle (Jihad Asghar) to the big struggle (Jihad Akbar)". His companions asked, "Oh prophet of God, what is the big struggle?" He replied, "The struggle against nafs."[6]
The Qur'an enjoins the faithful "to hinder the nafs from lust",[Qur'an 79:40] and another hadith warns that "the worst enemy you have is [the nafs] between your sides."[7] Rumi warns of the nafs in its guise of religious hypocrisy, saying "the nafs has a rosary and a Koran in its right hand, and a scimitar and dagger in the sleeve."[8]
Animal imagery is often used to describe the nafs. A popular image is a donkey or unruly horse that must be trained and broken so that eventually it will bear its rider to the goal.[9] Rumi compares the nafs to a camel which the hero Majnun, representing the intellect ('Aql), strains to turn in the direction of the dwelling-place of his beloved.[8]
[edit] The self-accusing nafs (nafs-i-lawwama)

In Sura al-Qiyama the Qur'an mentions "the self-accusing nafs".[Qur'an 75:2] This is the stage where "the conscience is awakened and the self accuses one for listening to one’s ego. One repents and asks for forgiveness."[10] Here the nafs is inspired by your heart, sees the results of your actions, agrees with your brain, sees your weaknesses, and aspires to perfection.
[edit] The nafs at peace (nafs-i-mutma'inna)

In Sura al-Fajr the Qur'an mentions "the nafs at peace".[Qur'an 89:27] This is the ideal stage of ego for Sufis. On this level one is firm in one’s faith and leaves bad manners behind.[10] The soul becomes tranquil, at peace.[10] At this stage Sufis have relieved themselves of all materialism and worldly problems and are satisfied with the will of God.
[edit] Four additional stages of nafs

In addition to the three principal stages, another four are sometimes cited:
[edit] The inspired nafs (nafs-i-mulhama)

This stage comes between the 2nd and 3rd principal stages. It is the stage of action. On this level "one becomes more firm in listening to one’s conscience, but is not yet surrendered."[10] Once you have seen your weaknesses and have set your targets, this ego inspires you to do good deeds and to be on the plus side. The Sufis say that it is important that whenever you think of good, you must immediately act upon it. Abbas Bin Abdul Muttalib lays down three rules:[citation needed]

1. Ta'Jeel or Swiftness. A good deed must be done immediately and there should be no laziness.
2. Tehqeer or Contempt. You must look at your good acts with contempt otherwise you will become self-righteous.
3. Ikhfa or Secrecy. You must keep your good acts secret otherwise people will praise you and it will make you self-righteous.

According to the Qur'an, charity should be given both secretly and openly. In Muhammad Asad's translation of the Qur'an, 14:31 reads: "[And] tell [those of] My servants who have attained to faith that they should be constant in prayer and spend [in Our way], secretly and openly, out of what We provide for them as sustenance, ere there come a Day when there will be no bargaining, and no mutual befriending."
[edit] The pleased nafs (nafs-i-radiyya)

The stage comes after the 3rd principal stage. On this level "one is pleased with whatever comes from Allah and doesn’t live in the past or future, but in the moment."[10] "One thinks always: ‘Ilahi Anta Maqsudi wa ridhaka matlubi’. One always sees oneself as weak and in need of Allah."[10]
[edit] The pleasing nafs (nafs-i-mardiyya)

On this level the two Ruhs in man "have made peace".[10] "One is soft and tolerant with people and has good Akhlak, good manners."[10]
[edit] The pure nafs (nafs-i-safiyya)

On this level "one is dressed in the attributes of the Insan Kamil, the perfected man, who is completely surrendered and inspired by Allah."[10] One is "in full agreement with the Will of Allah".[10]
[edit] Characteristics of nafs

In its primitive state the nafs has seven heads that must be defeated:[citation needed]

1. False pride (Takabbur)
2. Greed (Hirs)
3. Envy (Hasad)
4. Lust (Shahwah)
5. Backbiting (Gheebah)
6. Stinginess (Bokhl)
7. Malice (Keena)

[edit] See also

• Twelver
• Shia Islam
• Irfan
• Sufism
• Islamic psychological thought
• Lataif-e-sitta
• Qalb
• Ruh

[edit] Notes

• ^ Nurdeen Deuraseh and Mansor Abu Talib (2005), "Mental health in Islamic medical tradition", The International Medical Journal 4 (2), p. 76-79
• ^ Chittick, William (1983). The Sufi Path of Love. State University of New York Press. p. 12. ISBN 0-87395-724-5.
• ^ Shah, Idries (2001). The Sufis. London, UK: Octagon Press. pp. 394–395. ISBN 0-863040-20-9.
• ^ Frager, Robert (1999). Heart, Self and Soul. Quest Books. pp. 54–88. ISBN 0-8356-0778-X. An imprint of the Theosophical Publishing House.
• ^ Schimmel, Annemarie (1975). Mystical Dimensions of Islam. University of South Carolina Press. pp. 112–114.
• ^ Kabbani, Hisham. "Jihad Al Akbar". http://www.***********/tasawwuf/jihad004.html. Retrieved 17 January 2010.
• ^ Nicholson, Reynold Alleyne (2008). The Kitab Al-Luma Fi L-Tasawwuf Of Abu Nasr Abdallah B. Ali Al-Sarraj Al-Tusi: Edited For The First Time, With Critical Notes And Abstract (1914) by Reynold Alleyne Nicholson. Kessinger Publishing.
• ^ a b Nicholson, Reynold (1990). Mathnawi of Jalaluddin Rumi. Warminster: Gibb Memorial Trust. ISBN 0906094275.
• ^ Nicholson, Reynold (2008). The Kashf Al-Mahjub: The Oldest Persian Treatise On Sufism (1911). Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0548941068.
• ^ a b c d e f g h i j Al-Haqqani, Shaykh Adil; Kabbani, Shaykh Hisham (2004). The Path to Spiritual Excellence. Islamic Supreme Council of America (ISCA). pp. 102–103. ISBN 1-930409-18-4. See google book search

[edit] References


all the best

[Hiroshi]

It does.

"And call not those who are slain in the way of Allah "dead." Nay, they are living, only ye perceive not." (2:154)

"Think not of those, who are slain in the way of Allah, as dead. Nay, they are living. With their Lord they have provision.

Jubilant (are they) because of that which Allah hath bestowed upon them of His bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those who have not joined them but are left behind: That there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.

They rejoice because of favour from Allah and kindness, and that Allah wasteth not the wage of the believers." (3:169-171)



Yes. See above also.

Peace.

You are wrong.

Surah al anfal (50-54) and surah al an'am (93-94)

My thanks to both of you clever people for your research here. I was about to go away with the wrong idea but now I see that the Qur'an does teach that the dead are conscious before they are resurrected.

Insaanah, Surah 6:93 cited here has the word: "anfusakumu" for "souls". I would say then that this is surely an instance where the plural form of "nafs" means "spirits". Is that right?

Also, why do the angels in Surah 8:50 tell the kafar unbelievers: "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire" when they are not in hell yet?

[Hiroshi]

here is wiki if the Arabic sites weren't to your fancy:

Nafs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nafs is an Arabic word derived from the Hebrew word "Nefesh" נפש occurring in the Qur'an meaning self, psyche,[1] ego or soul. In its unrefined state, "the ego (nafs) is the lowest dimension of man's inward existence, his animal and satanic nature."[2] Nafs is an important concept in the Islamic tradition, especially within Sufism and the discipline of gnosis (Irfan) in Shia Islam.
Contents

My thanks to you also.

[جوري]

Also, why do the angels in Surah 8:50 tell the kafar unbelievers: "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire" when they are not in hell yet?

You have heard of punishment in the grave? If you have questions about Islam then why pose yourself as someone who has knowledge of and coming to enlighten us of our own religion?

all the best


The First Night In The Grave


Prepared by JIMAS

(Fathul Baaree of Ibn Hajr, 3/233): "He sufficed with affirming its existence, in contrast to those who totally deny it from the Khawaarij and some of the Mu'tazilah such as Diraar ibn 'Amr and Bishr al Mareesee and those who agree with them. And they are opposed in that by most of the Mu'tazilah and all of Ahlus-Sunnah and others"
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "The souls of the Believers are inside green birds in the trees of Paradise until Allaah returns them to their bodies on the Day of Resurrection." [Saheeh: At-Tabraanee in 'al kabeer' from Ka'b ibn Maalik & Umm Mubashshir.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Seek Allaah's protection from the Punishment of the Grave, since punishment of the Grave is a fact/true." [Saheeh: At-Tabraanee in 'al-Kabeer' from Umm Khaalid bint Khaalid ibn Sa'eed ibn al-'Aas.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Everyone who dies - then his actions are sealed except for the one guarding the border in the way of Allaah - his actions continue to increase for him until the Day of Resurrection and he is saved from the trials of the Grave." [Saheeh: Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhee, al-Haakim: from Fadaalah ibn 'Ubaid & Ahmad from 'Uqbah ibn 'Aamir.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Verily the grave is the first stopping place for the Hereafter; so if he is saved therein, then what comes after is easier than it. And if he is not saved therefrom, then that which comes after is harder." [Hasan: At-Tirmidhee, Ibn Maajah, al-Haakim: from 'Uthmaan.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "When the dead person is buried two black-blue angels come to him, one called al-Munkar and the other called an-Nakeer, and they say to him: 'What had you used to say about this man?' So he says what he used to say: 'Allaah's slave and His Messenger, I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.' So they say: 'Verily we knew that you (would) say that.' Then his grave is widened for him to the extent of seventy cubits by seventy, then it is made light for him, then it is said: ' Sleep.' So he says: 'I should go to my family and inform them.' So they say: 'Sleep as the newly married sleeps whom no-one awakes except his favourite wife.' Until Allaah raises him up from that place of sleep. And if he is a hypocrite (munaafiq), he says: 'I heard the people saying something so I said it too, I don't know.' So they say: 'We knew that you (would) say that.' So it is said to
the earth: 'Crush him', so he is crushed until his cross over and he remains in the state of torture until Allaah raises him up from that resting place." [Hasan: At-Tirmidhee from Abu Hurairah.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "When a human being is laid in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their footsteps, two angels come to him and make him sit and ask him: What did you used to say about this man, Muhammad? He will say: I testify that he is Allaah's slave and His Apostle. Then it will be said to him, 'Look at your place in the Hell-Fire. Allaah has changed for you a place in Paradise instead of it.' The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) added, "The dead person will see both his places. But a non-believer or a hypocrite will say to the angels, 'I do not know, but I used to say what the people used to say! It will be said to him, 'neither did you know nor did you take the guidance (by reciting the Qur'aan).' Then he will be hit with an iron hammer between his ears, and he will cry and that cry will be heard by whatever approaches him except human beings and jinns." [Saheeh: Al-Bukhaaree (2/422), Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Daud, an-Nasaa.ee: from Anas.]
Al-Baraa b. 'Azib said: We went out with the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) accompanying the bier of a man of the Ansar. When he reached his grave, it was not yet dug. So the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) sat down and we also sat down around him as if birds were over our heads. He had in his hand a stick by which he was scratching the ground. He then raised his head and said: Seek refuge in Allaah from the punishment of the grave. He said it twice or thrice. The version of Jarir adds here: He hears the beat of their sandals when they go back, and at that moment he asked: O so and so! Who is your Lord, what is your religion, and who is your Prophet? Hannad's version has: Two angels will come to him, make him sit up, and ask him: Who is your Lord? He will reply: My Lord is Allaah. They will ask him: What is your religion? He will reply: My religion is Islaam. They will ask him: What is your opinion about the man who was sent on a mission among you? He will reply: He is the Apostle of Allaah. They will ask: Who made you aware of this? He will reply: I read Allaah's Book, believed in it, and considered it true, which is verified by Allaah's word: "Allaah establishes those who believe with the word that stands firm in this world and the next." The agreed version goes: Then a crier will call from the heaven: My servant has spoken the truth, so spread a bed for him from Paradise, clothe him in Paradise, and open a door for him into Paradise. So some of its air and perfume will come to him, and a space will be made for him as far as the eye can see. He also mentioned the death of the infidel, saying: His spirit will be restored to his body, two angels will come to him, make him sit up and ask him: Who is your Lord? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. They will ask him: What is your religion? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. They will ask: Who is this man who was sent on a mission among you? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. Then a crier will call from the heaven: He has lied, so spread a bed for him from Hell, clothe him from Hell and open for him a door into Hell. Then some of its heat and pestilential wind will come to him, and his grave will become restricted, so his ribs will be pressed together. Jarir's version adds: One who is blind and dumb will then be placed in charge of him, having a sledge hammer such that if a mountain were struck with it, it would become dust. He will give him a blow with it which will be heard by everything between the east and the west except by men and jinn, and he will become dust. Then his spirit will be restored to him. [Saheeh: Ahmad, Abu Dawud (3/4735) Ibn Khuzaimah, al-Haakim, al-Baihaqee in 'Shu'ab ul-Imaan', ad-Diyaa: from al-Baraa.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "...the righteous man sits in his grave and is not alarmed or afraid, then it is said to him (by angels): 'In (what state) were you?' So he says: 'In the (state of) Islaam.' So it is said to him: 'What is this man?' So he says: 'Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah who came to us with clear signs from Allaah, so we believed that.' Then it is said to him: 'Have you seen Allaah?' So he says: 'It does not behove any man that he sees Allaah.' So an opening is made for him in the direction of the Fire, so he sees it, some parts of it smashing into others, and it is said to him: 'Look at what Allaah, the Exalted, has saved you from.' Then an opening is made for him in the direction of Paradise, and he looks to its brilliance and what is therein and it is said to him: 'This is your place.' And it is said to him: 'You were upon certain Faith and died upon it and upon it you will be raised up, if Allaah wills.' And the wicked man sits in his grave alarmed and terrified and so it is said to him: 'In what state were you?' So he says: 'I do not know.' So it is said to him: 'Who is this man?' So he says: 'I heard the people saying something so I said it!' So an opening is made for him in the direction of Paradise and he sees its brilliance and what is therein, and it is said to him: 'Look at what Allaah has refused you.' Then an opening is made for him in the direction of the Fire, so he sees it crashing against itself and it is said: 'This is your place, you lived upon doubt and died upon it and you will be raised up upon it, if it is Allaah's will." [Saheeh: Ibn Maajah from Abu Hurairah.]

Related Items

Articles
• Signs of a Good End by Shaykh Muhammad Nasir-ud-Deen al-Albani
• Signs of a Good End to One's Life by Shaykh `Alee Hasan `Alee `Abdul Hameed
• The Highest Position in Paradise by Dr. `Umar Al-Ashqar
• The Least Torture for Those in the Hell by Saeed al Qahtani

Audio Lectures
• Death is Near: The Death of Imam Jabir by Yahya Adel Ibrahim
More From This Section
• Iman

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=603

[Woodrow]

Okay. I assume that you believe that animals do not have immortal souls. Based on what you say here then, it would be completely impossible for God ever to restore an animal to life. Is this correct?

Not a question of impossible or possible for God(swt) to do. Again it is a statement that eliminates itself by it's own definition. When something is completely obliterated it no longer exists. A dead animal no longer exists as an animal, it is simply a pile of various organic compounds until those are absorbed into the earth and recycled as soil. It is not a resurrection it is a creation or recreation, but because of the lose of continuity it is not the same animal, no matter if it is an exact replica of the same creature, it is still a new creature.

What differentiates man from beast if both are "souls"? Why is it permitted to eat the flesh of our fellow earthly travelers if they and us are both "souls"?

[Grace Seeker]

If I may use an analogy to portray what I think Woodrow is saying here. Suppose that one owns a beautiful 1957 Chevy in mint condition, just as it came off of the assembly line. Sadly, the car is stolen, taken to a junk yard where it is disassembled and sold for scrap. Now the manufacturer buys the scrap metal, melts it down and produces a brand new car that is a perfect remake of that original 1957 Chevy. Despite all of the pieces going into being from the original, and despite the car looking exactly the same, it still isn't going to be a 1957 Chevy, but just a remake. It isn't the same thing, the original is gone and lost forever, never to be again because it was obliterated. That's what that the term "obliterated" means. If what is produced later is the same as the original, then the original was never obliterated but somehow continued to exist.

[Hiroshi]

You have heard of punishment in the grave? If you have questions about Islam then why pose yourself as someone who has knowledge of and coming to enlighten us of our own religion?

all the best


The First Night In The Grave


Prepared by JIMAS

(Fathul Baaree of Ibn Hajr, 3/233): "He sufficed with affirming its existence, in contrast to those who totally deny it from the Khawaarij and some of the Mu'tazilah such as Diraar ibn 'Amr and Bishr al Mareesee and those who agree with them. And they are opposed in that by most of the Mu'tazilah and all of Ahlus-Sunnah and others"
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "The souls of the Believers are inside green birds in the trees of Paradise until Allaah returns them to their bodies on the Day of Resurrection." [Saheeh: At-Tabraanee in 'al kabeer' from Ka'b ibn Maalik & Umm Mubashshir.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Seek Allaah's protection from the Punishment of the Grave, since punishment of the Grave is a fact/true." [Saheeh: At-Tabraanee in 'al-Kabeer' from Umm Khaalid bint Khaalid ibn Sa'eed ibn al-'Aas.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Everyone who dies - then his actions are sealed except for the one guarding the border in the way of Allaah - his actions continue to increase for him until the Day of Resurrection and he is saved from the trials of the Grave." [Saheeh: Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhee, al-Haakim: from Fadaalah ibn 'Ubaid & Ahmad from 'Uqbah ibn 'Aamir.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "Verily the grave is the first stopping place for the Hereafter; so if he is saved therein, then what comes after is easier than it. And if he is not saved therefrom, then that which comes after is harder." [Hasan: At-Tirmidhee, Ibn Maajah, al-Haakim: from 'Uthmaan.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "When the dead person is buried two black-blue angels come to him, one called al-Munkar and the other called an-Nakeer, and they say to him: 'What had you used to say about this man?' So he says what he used to say: 'Allaah's slave and His Messenger, I bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.' So they say: 'Verily we knew that you (would) say that.' Then his grave is widened for him to the extent of seventy cubits by seventy, then it is made light for him, then it is said: ' Sleep.' So he says: 'I should go to my family and inform them.' So they say: 'Sleep as the newly married sleeps whom no-one awakes except his favourite wife.' Until Allaah raises him up from that place of sleep. And if he is a hypocrite (munaafiq), he says: 'I heard the people saying something so I said it too, I don't know.' So they say: 'We knew that you (would) say that.' So it is said to
the earth: 'Crush him', so he is crushed until his cross over and he remains in the state of torture until Allaah raises him up from that resting place." [Hasan: At-Tirmidhee from Abu Hurairah.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "When a human being is laid in his grave and his companions return and he even hears their footsteps, two angels come to him and make him sit and ask him: What did you used to say about this man, Muhammad? He will say: I testify that he is Allaah's slave and His Apostle. Then it will be said to him, 'Look at your place in the Hell-Fire. Allaah has changed for you a place in Paradise instead of it.' The Prophet (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) added, "The dead person will see both his places. But a non-believer or a hypocrite will say to the angels, 'I do not know, but I used to say what the people used to say! It will be said to him, 'neither did you know nor did you take the guidance (by reciting the Qur'aan).' Then he will be hit with an iron hammer between his ears, and he will cry and that cry will be heard by whatever approaches him except human beings and jinns." [Saheeh: Al-Bukhaaree (2/422), Muslim, Ahmad, Abu Daud, an-Nasaa.ee: from Anas.]
Al-Baraa b. 'Azib said: We went out with the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) accompanying the bier of a man of the Ansar. When he reached his grave, it was not yet dug. So the Prophet of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) sat down and we also sat down around him as if birds were over our heads. He had in his hand a stick by which he was scratching the ground. He then raised his head and said: Seek refuge in Allaah from the punishment of the grave. He said it twice or thrice. The version of Jarir adds here: He hears the beat of their sandals when they go back, and at that moment he asked: O so and so! Who is your Lord, what is your religion, and who is your Prophet? Hannad's version has: Two angels will come to him, make him sit up, and ask him: Who is your Lord? He will reply: My Lord is Allaah. They will ask him: What is your religion? He will reply: My religion is Islaam. They will ask him: What is your opinion about the man who was sent on a mission among you? He will reply: He is the Apostle of Allaah. They will ask: Who made you aware of this? He will reply: I read Allaah's Book, believed in it, and considered it true, which is verified by Allaah's word: "Allaah establishes those who believe with the word that stands firm in this world and the next." The agreed version goes: Then a crier will call from the heaven: My servant has spoken the truth, so spread a bed for him from Paradise, clothe him in Paradise, and open a door for him into Paradise. So some of its air and perfume will come to him, and a space will be made for him as far as the eye can see. He also mentioned the death of the infidel, saying: His spirit will be restored to his body, two angels will come to him, make him sit up and ask him: Who is your Lord? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. They will ask him: What is your religion? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. They will ask: Who is this man who was sent on a mission among you? He will reply: Alas, alas! I do not know. Then a crier will call from the heaven: He has lied, so spread a bed for him from Hell, clothe him from Hell and open for him a door into Hell. Then some of its heat and pestilential wind will come to him, and his grave will become restricted, so his ribs will be pressed together. Jarir's version adds: One who is blind and dumb will then be placed in charge of him, having a sledge hammer such that if a mountain were struck with it, it would become dust. He will give him a blow with it which will be heard by everything between the east and the west except by men and jinn, and he will become dust. Then his spirit will be restored to him. [Saheeh: Ahmad, Abu Dawud (3/4735) Ibn Khuzaimah, al-Haakim, al-Baihaqee in 'Shu'ab ul-Imaan', ad-Diyaa: from al-Baraa.]
The Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu 'alaihi wa sallam) said, "...the righteous man sits in his grave and is not alarmed or afraid, then it is said to him (by angels): 'In (what state) were you?' So he says: 'In the (state of) Islaam.' So it is said to him: 'What is this man?' So he says: 'Muhammad the Messenger of Allaah who came to us with clear signs from Allaah, so we believed that.' Then it is said to him: 'Have you seen Allaah?' So he says: 'It does not behove any man that he sees Allaah.' So an opening is made for him in the direction of the Fire, so he sees it, some parts of it smashing into others, and it is said to him: 'Look at what Allaah, the Exalted, has saved you from.' Then an opening is made for him in the direction of Paradise, and he looks to its brilliance and what is therein and it is said to him: 'This is your place.' And it is said to him: 'You were upon certain Faith and died upon it and upon it you will be raised up, if Allaah wills.' And the wicked man sits in his grave alarmed and terrified and so it is said to him: 'In what state were you?' So he says: 'I do not know.' So it is said to him: 'Who is this man?' So he says: 'I heard the people saying something so I said it!' So an opening is made for him in the direction of Paradise and he sees its brilliance and what is therein, and it is said to him: 'Look at what Allaah has refused you.' Then an opening is made for him in the direction of the Fire, so he sees it crashing against itself and it is said: 'This is your place, you lived upon doubt and died upon it and you will be raised up upon it, if it is Allaah's will." [Saheeh: Ibn Maajah from Abu Hurairah.]

Related Items

Articles
• Signs of a Good End by Shaykh Muhammad Nasir-ud-Deen al-Albani
• Signs of a Good End to One's Life by Shaykh `Alee Hasan `Alee `Abdul Hameed
• The Highest Position in Paradise by Dr. `Umar Al-Ashqar
• The Least Torture for Those in the Hell by Saeed al Qahtani

Audio Lectures
• Death is Near: The Death of Imam Jabir by Yahya Adel Ibrahim
More From This Section
• Iman

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=603

Where do we read anywhere that those in the grave experience the torment of hell fire?

[Hiroshi]

Not a question of impossible or possible for God(swt) to do. Again it is a statement that eliminates itself by it's own definition. When something is completely obliterated it no longer exists. A dead animal no longer exists as an animal, it is simply a pile of various organic compounds until those are absorbed into the earth and recycled as soil. It is not a resurrection it is a creation or recreation, but because of the lose of continuity it is not the same animal, no matter if it is an exact replica of the same creature, it is still a new creature.

What differentiates man from beast if both are "souls"? Why is it permitted to eat the flesh of our fellow earthly travelers if they and us are both "souls"?

If I may use an analogy to portray what I think Woodrow is saying here. Suppose that one owns a beautiful 1957 Chevy in mint condition, just as it came off of the assembly line. Sadly, the car is stolen, taken to a junk yard where it is disassembled and sold for scrap. Now the manufacturer buys the scrap metal, melts it down and produces a brand new car that is a perfect remake of that original 1957 Chevy. Despite all of the pieces going into being from the original, and despite the car looking exactly the same, it still isn't going to be a 1957 Chevy, but just a remake. It isn't the same thing, the original is gone and lost forever, never to be again because it was obliterated. That's what that the term "obliterated" means. If what is produced later is the same as the original, then the original was never obliterated but somehow continued to exist.

Moses had a staff or rod that God miraculously changed into a living snake. It then became a lifeless rod once more. But the snake returned to life on at least two more occasions (Surah 20:20; Surah 20:69 also Exodus 4:3; Exodus 4:30; Exodus 7:10). Any thoughts on that?

[Woodrow]

Moses had a staff or rod that God miraculously changed into a living snake. It then became a lifeless rod once more. But the snake returned to life on at least two more occasions (Surah 20:20; Surah 20:69 also Exodus 4:3; Exodus 4:30; Exodus 7:10). Any thoughts on that?

No problem with the rod being turned into a snake thousands of times. However, you still do not have any continuity of life. Each time the staff is turned into a snake, it would not be the very same snake. Unless the snake is still alive while it is in the form of a staff and that would mean you are ascribing a soul to the snake.

Of course the other option is the staff is always the staff but at times being given the form of a snake like a glass of water is still the same glass of water if it is water, ice or steam. You can look at it as the staff is given the form of a snake and changed back and forth between being a staff or snake. There is no loss or destruction of either, it is the same object in 2 different forms.

[جوري]

Where do we read anywhere that those in the grave experience the torment of hell fire?

The above denotes article there is torture in the grave, the torture of hell fire is upon resurrection.. not difficult is it?

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

My take is that the staff is always a staff that God causes to take on the form of a snake, but still is in essence a staff.

I'm also hoping I might get a response to this:

If you say that we are "born with a soul" it gives the impression that we are made up of two parts: body and soul. This is not the picture that the Bible gives. Rather, it refers to the soul as the whole person.

Are you saying that according to the Bible soul and body are inseparable?

[Hiroshi]

The above denotes article there is torture in the grave, the torture of hell fire is upon resurrection.. not difficult is it?

all the best

Oh sure. What the angels meant was: “taste the punishment of hellfire 1,000 years from now.”

[Woodrow]

Oh sure. What the angels meant was: “taste the punishment of hellfire 1,000 years from now.”

I am not certain if that is what the angel meant, but if it was, What is the problem?

[جوري]

Oh sure. What the angels meant was: “taste the punishment of hellfire 1,000 years from now.”

[Pickthal 79:42] They ask thee of the Hour: when will it come to port?
[Pickthal 79:43] Why (ask they)? What hast thou to tell thereof?
[Pickthal 79:44] Unto thy Lord belongeth (knowledge of) the term thereof.
[Pickthal 79:45] Thou art but a warner unto him who feareth it.
[Pickthal 79:46] On the day when they behold it, it will be as if they had but tarried for an evening or the morn thereof.

Only Christians purport to know, the number of folks in heaven, when Armageddon will come about, who is saved and who isn't.. it is a shame really, when you can't think of another way for this religion to get worse.
As you can see quoted from the noble Quran, no one knows when that 'hour' shall be, so again, how about quitting rendering your own interpretation to Islamic text?

all the best

[Hiroshi]

I am not certain if that is what the angel meant, but if it was, What is the problem?

The problem is that the angels would have used the future tense when saying this. But the statement is in the present tense as far as I can see. No doubt you will explain it all with a lesson in Arabic grammar.

[Insaanah]

My thanks to both of you clever people for your research here.

Nothing clever about that; those verses immediately came to mind - no research needed.

Insaanah, Surah 6:93 cited here has the word: "anfusakumu" for "souls". I would say then that this is surely an instance where the plural form of "nafs" means "spirits". Is that right?

Nafs is an Arabic word derived from the Hebrew word "Nefesh" נפש occurring in the Qur'an meaning self, psyche,[1] ego or soul.

This may be one of those occasions where it means souls.

Also, why do the angels in Surah 8:50 tell the kafar unbelievers: "Taste the penalty of the blazing Fire" when they are not in hell yet?

Where do we read anywhere that those in the grave experience the torment of hell fire?

Oh sure. What the angels meant was: “taste the punishment of hellfire 1,000 years from now.”

The believers will get tasters of their final abode, in their grave, as will the disbelievers. They will be shown what their final abode will be, while they are in their graves. This is referred to by Allah in the Qur'an:

"So Allah protected him from the evils they plotted, and the people of Pharaoh were enveloped by the worst of punishment. The Fire, they are exposed to it morning and evening. And the Day the Hour appears [it will be said], "Make the people of Pharaoh enter the severest punishment." (40:45-46)

I believe you are already aware of the punishment of the grave.

the ahadith does. I have read accounts in them of the dead in their graves awaiting resurrection and suffering if they are wicked but existing in comfort if they are righteous.

Peace.

[Hiroshi]

The believers will get tasters of their final abode, in their grave, as will the disbelievers.

Okay I guess. If that is the only explanation. I still don't read anywhere that these disbelievers are burned. So they don't really taste the punishment of fire. They just get beaten up by angels.

[Insaanah]

Okay I guess. If that is the only explanation. I still don't read anywhere that these disbelievers are burned. So they don't really taste the punishment of fire. They just get beaten up by angels.

The angels said: "Taste the punishment of the fire." They didn't say, "Burn in the fire." Physically burning in a fire is not the only way to experience a fire. You may see the fire, you may feel it's intense heat, etc. And all of this will happen, as shown in the Qur'anic quote above (40:45-46) together with the hadeeth below. The heat alone of hell-fire will be at least 70 times hotter than any fire on Earth. See the bolded and coloured part of the last paragraph of the hadeeth below:

"It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: We went out with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) for the funeral of a man from among the Ansaar. We came to the grave and when (the deceased) was placed in the lahd, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sat down and we sat around him, as if there were birds on our heads (i.e., quiet and still). In his hand he had a stick with which he was scratching the ground. Then he raised his head and said, “Seek refuge with Allaah from the torment of the grave”, two or three times. Then he said, “When the believing slave is about to depart this world and enter the Hereafter, there come down to him from heaven angels with white faces like the sun, and they sit around him as far as the eye can see. They bring with them shrouds from Paradise and perfumes from Paradise. Then the Angel of Death comes and sits by his head, and he says, ‘O good soul, come forth to forgiveness from Allaah and His pleasure.’ Then it comes out easily like a drop of water from the mouth of a waterskin. When he seizes it, they do not leave it in his hand for an instant before they take it and put it in that shroud with that perfume, and there comes from it a fragrance like the finest musk on the face of the earth. Then they ascend and they do not pass by any group of angels but they say, ‘Who is this good soul?’ and they say, ‘It is So and so the son of So and so, calling him by the best names by which he was known in this world, until they reach the lowest heaven. They ask for it to be opened to them and it is opened, and (the soul) is welcomed and accompanied to the next heaven by those who are closest to Allaah, until they reach the seventh heaven. Then Allaah says: ‘Record the book of My slave in ‘Illiyoon in the seventh heaven, and return him to the earth, for from it I created them, to it I will return them and from it I will bring them forth once again.’ So his soul is returned to his body and there come to him two angels who make him sit up and they say to him, ‘Who is your Lord?’ He says, ‘Allaah.’ They say, ‘What is your religion?’ He says, ‘My religion is Islam.’ They say, ‘Who is this man who was sent among you?’ He says, ‘He is the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).’ They say, ‘What did you do?’ He says, ‘I read the Book of Allaah and I believed in it.’ Then a voice calls out from heaven, ‘My slave has spoken the truth, so prepare for him a bed from Paradise and clothe him from Paradise, and open for him a gate to Paradise.’ Then there comes to him some of its fragrance, and his grave is made wide, as far as he can see. Then there comes to him a man with a handsome face and handsome clothes, and a good fragrance, who says, ‘Receive the glad tidings that will bring you joy this day.’ He says, ‘Who are you? Your face is a face which brings glad tidings.’ He says, ‘I am your righteous deeds.’ He says, ‘O Lord, hasten the Hour so that I may return to my family and my wealth.’

But when the disbelieving slave is about to depart this world and enter the Hereafter, there come down to him from heaven angels with black faces, bringing sackcloth, and they sit around him as far as the eye can see. Then the Angel of Death comes and sits by his head, and he says, ‘O evil soul, come forth to the wrath of Allaah and His anger.’ Then his soul disperses inside his body, then comes out cutting the veins and nerves, like a skewer passing through wet wool. When he seizes it, they do not leave it in his hand for an instant before they take it and put it in that sackcloth, and there comes from it a stench like the foulest stench of a dead body on the face of the earth. Then they ascend and they do not pass by any group of angels but they say, ‘Who is this evil soul?’ and they say, ‘It is So and so the son of So and so, calling him by the worst names by which he was known in this world, until they reach the lowest heaven. They ask for it to be opened to them and it is not opened.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recited (interpretation of the meaning):
“for them the gates of heaven will not be opened, and they will not enter Paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle” [al-A’raaf 7:40]

He said: “Then Allaah says, ‘Record the book of My slave in Sijjeen in the lowest earth, and return him to the earth, for from it I created them, to it I will return them and from it I will bring them forth once again.’ So his soul is cast down.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) recited the verse (interpretation of the meaning):
“and whoever assigns partners to Allaah, it is as if he had fallen from the sky, and the birds had snatched him, or the wind had thrown him to a far off place”
[al-Hajj 22:31]

He said: “Then his soul is returned to his body, and there come to him two angels who make him sit up and they say to him, ‘Who is your Lord?’ He says, ‘Oh, oh, I don’t know.’ They say, ‘What is your religion?’ He says, ‘Oh, oh, I don’t know.’ Then a voice calls out from heaven, ‘Prepare for him a bed from Hell and clothe him from Hell, and open for him a gate to Hell.’ Then there comes to him some of its heat and hot winds, and his grave is constricted and compresses him until his ribs interlock. Then there comes to him a man with an ugly face and ugly clothes, and a foul stench, who says, ‘Receive the bad news, this is the day that you were promised.’ He says, ‘Who are you? Your face is a face which forebodes evil.’ He says, ‘I am your evil deeds.’ He says, ‘O Lord, do not let the Hour come, do not let the Hour come.’”

(Narrated by Abu Dawood, 4753; Ahmad, 18063 – this version was narrated by him. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1676.)

Peace.

[Amat Allah]

Originally Posted by Hiroshi Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15. So he is the first created being. He existed in heaven with God before coming to earth by being born through Mary. The Bible repeatedly calls Jesus (and some others) "Son of God".

As I understood from your words; Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not from the sons of Adam, right?

At what age Jesus was; when he was with God in heavens? do you know? was he a baby or an adult? was he in a human form ?

Why to say Jesus is the son of God while you said that Allah created him (is he a creature of God or His son?)...are we the sons and daughters of God since He created us? and are all the creatures of God His sons and daughters? and if Jesus is the son of God then why not worshipping him with God? ...Praise Be To Allah and High Be He ,Exalted and Raised far above...


and another Q that I really want to know its answer; according to the Christianity and the bible ;are all the Muslims (who died not believing that Jesus is the son of God) going to hell (or let me say Jahannam to not confuse you ;as you believe that hell means grave) ?

this will be in shaa Allah the last Qs and post for me here ;if not being asked about something or being cofused by some answers...in shaa Allah...

[Hiroshi]

As I understood from your words; Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is not from the sons of Adam, right?

At what age Jesus was; when he was with God in heavens? do you know? was he a baby or an adult? was he in a human form ?

Why to say Jesus is the son of God while you said that Allah created him (is he a creature of God or His son?)...are we the sons and daughters of God since He created us? and are all the creatures of God His sons and daughters? and if Jesus is the son of God then why not worshipping him with God? ...Praise Be To Allah and High Be He ,Exalted and Raised far above...


and another Q that I really want to know its answer; according to the Christianity and the bible ;are all the Muslims (who died not believing that Jesus is the son of God) going to hell (or let me say Jahannam to not confuse you ;as you believe that hell means grave) ?

this will be in shaa Allah the last Qs and post for me here ;if not being asked about something or being cofused by some answers...in shaa Allah...

I am sorry if you are confused, Amat Allah. I am trying to keep things simple.

The Qur'an and the Bible agree that Jesus had no human father. God himself caused Jesus' birth. He is not from the sons of Adam.

Jesus existed in heaven with God before anything else was created. He was with God "in the beginning" (John 1:1). Obviously, he was not a mere human but a spirit being before coming to the earth.

Angels and humans have certain godly qualities that animals do not. They can show love, a sense of justice, wisdom, and an appreciation of spiritual things. As such God can view them as his children that he can have dealings with and we can view God as a loving and caring Father. Any father is a life-giver. And God has given life to us all.

Jahannam (in Hebrew: "Gei Hinnom"; in Greek: "Gehenna") is not a place of burning torment. It is a place of destruction and you have to be very, very wicked to go there. Lots of ignorant people who never knew the truth about Jesus will still be shown mercy by God.

[Hiroshi]

The angels said: "Taste the punishment of the fire." They didn't say, "Burn in the fire." Physically burning in a fire is not the only way to experience a fire. You may see the fire, you may feel it's intense heat, etc. And all of this will happen, as shown in the Qur'anic quote above (40:45-46) together with the hadeeth below. The heat alone of hell-fire will be at least 70 times hotter than any fire on Earth. See the bolded and coloured part of the last paragraph of the hadeeth below:

Thank you for your research Insaanah. Sorry to put you to so much work.

[Hiroshi]

If I may use an analogy to portray what I think Woodrow is saying here. Suppose that one owns a beautiful 1957 Chevy in mint condition, just as it came off of the assembly line. Sadly, the car is stolen, taken to a junk yard where it is disassembled and sold for scrap. Now the manufacturer buys the scrap metal, melts it down and produces a brand new car that is a perfect remake of that original 1957 Chevy. Despite all of the pieces going into being from the original, and despite the car looking exactly the same, it still isn't going to be a 1957 Chevy, but just a remake. It isn't the same thing, the original is gone and lost forever, never to be again because it was obliterated. That's what that the term "obliterated" means. If what is produced later is the same as the original, then the original was never obliterated but somehow continued to exist.

No one really understands what life is or how God can create it. It certainly is a very individual thing. A person's identical twin even with similar thoughts and personality is still not the same as the person. At the same time, the body that we have grows and changes while we remain the same in our identity.

Only God really comprehends the mystery of life. We shouldn't compare what humans can do with a car to what God can do with life.

With man-made cameras and audio equipment we can record a person's behaviour with such realism that it seems that the images are alive. But God can do far more. He can miraculously restore the whole person and really make him live again.

[Grace Seeker]

the body that we have grows and changes while we remain the same in our identity.

Actually, this would be more or less the crux of my point.

Not that you asked, but I would like to testify: Who I am is not determined by my body, for every cell in my body changes over time. Who I am is much deeper than skin and bones, muscle and sinew. Who I am is a creation of God, born when he created my spirit within me. The scriptures speak of God blowing his breath, his Spirit, into Adam. I don't know how it is done with the rest of us, but I believe that somehow God still breathes the breath of life, spiritual life, into each one of us. And so the Holy Spirit speaks to our spirits to woo us to himself. That spirit nature is, I believe, the reason that we are eternal beings from the moment of our creation. Yet it is also obvious that our physical bodies are not themselves eternal in nature. So, what we really are is a spiritual being clothed in a physical body. And that spirit within us is what makes us different from dogs and cats and horses and even chimpanzees.

[Amat Allah]

Thank you my respected brother for your kindness...May Allah give you the khayer of this life and the hereafter...Ameeeen

and yes our beloved prophet of Allah Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had no human father but he had a human mother who is form the sons and daughters of Adam and Allah Is The One Who Caused our birth...and Allah says about Jesus in His Noble Book ;Qur`aan:

"Verily, the likeness of 'Iesa (Jesus) before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be!" - and he was. (59) (This is) the truth from your Lord, so be not of those who doubt. (60) " Surat Aal Im`raan

and if Allah had created Isa before and if Isa was in heaven with Allah then ; Allah would tell us in the Qur`aan and wouldn`t say the verse above but would explain for us that He (Allah) created Isa as a spirit in heaven before; then created him from dust and sent him to earth...(Aoothobellah from being one of those who try to chang the Qur`aan but I am just explaining for you and not lying to Allah..and Allah knows what lies inside of this heart of mine)....

My respected brother ,I know that we are different from animals and plants and also we human are different from Angels too peace be upon them but that won`t let us be Allah`s sons and daughters but His slaves and servants...if you were a slave for some king would you be able to call him father but to say : O your Majesty O my king O my lord...etc and if saying O my father to him then I don`t think that your head would be in its place again...think about it...

Allah says : "And (both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are the children of Allah and His loved ones." Say: "Why then does He punish you for your sins?" Nay, you are but human beings, of those He has created, He forgives whom He wills and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them, and to Him is the return (of all). (18) Surat Al Maa`edah

and says:"And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! (30)" Surat At`tawbah

and says: "And they say: Allah hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He glorified! Nay, but whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth is His. All are subservient unto Him. (116)" Surat Al Baqarah

"They say: Allah hath taken (unto Him) a son - Glorified be He! He hath no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Ye have no warrant for this. Tell ye concerning Allah that which ye know not? (68) Say: Verily those who invent a lie concerning Allah will not succeed. (69) This world's portion (will be theirs), then unto Us is their return. Then We make them taste a dreadful doom because they used to disbelieve. (70) " Surat Yunus

and many many verses telling us that Allah has no sons and Allah never ever called us neither in Qur`aan; O my sons ,O my children or daughters nor the Sunnah mentioned that ever but O sons of Adam O My slaves and that what we are to Allah; His slaves and servants even the master of humanity Muhammad Bin Abdillellah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) never say that he is from Allah`s sons but His slave servant prophet and messenger...

and Jahannam for muslims is the place of burning torment whether for those who will abide in it till for ever or those who will not...and Allah says:"Verily, those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers, it is they on whom is the Curse of Allah and of the angels and of mankind, combined. (161) They will abide therein (under the curse in Hell), their punishment will neither be lightened, nor will they be reprieved. (162)" Surat Al Baqarah

and I believe I am sure I know and it is carved in my heart that Jesus Ezra and Muhammad all are Allah`s slaves servants and prophets but not His sons by any mean and also that The religion of Islam is one of Allah`s religions the religion which Allah perfected for us and Qur`aan is one of Allah`s books and falsehood cannot come to Qur`aan from before it or behind it and it is sent down by the All-Wise, Worthy of all praise (Allah)...and may Allah keep me firm on this and all Muslims Ameeeeen

And I bear witness testify and swear that there is no god but Allah Who Is the Only One Who deserves to be worshipped alone and has no partners sons or relatives and I bear witness testify and swear that Jesus Ezra Muhammad and all of the creation of Allah are the slaves and servants of Allah and non is His son and May The Curse of Allah and His wrath be on me and make me abide till forever in Jahannam and never be merciful to me if Isa ( Jesus peace be uopn him) is the son of Allah and if Islam Qur`aan and Muhammad peace and blessings of Allah be uopn him are a lie Ameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeen

my respected brother there is a famous saying in Arabia and it is:

الحق أبلج و الباطل لجلج


Al Haqqu Ablaju Wa Al Baatilu luj`luju...


it means : the truth is clear and falsehood is weak and fades away


as Allah says: "And say: "Truth has come and Batil (falsehood) has vanished. Surely! Batil is ever bound to vanish." (81) " Surat Al Is`raa

May Allah guide us all before the day of Judgement...Ameeeen

Allahumma Bal`laght Allahumma fa`shhad ( O Allah I have told them ;O Allah be my witness)

peace and farewell

[Grace Seeker]

Yes, humans are born as souls. Animals are also born as souls. Revelation 16:3 KJV says: "every living soul died in the sea" referring to sea creatures.

If you say that we are "born with a soul" it gives the impression that we are made up of two parts: body and soul. This is not the picture that the Bible gives. Rather, it refers to the soul as the whole person.

Hiroshi, I know that you have much more to do than answer our questions, but I'm still intrigued by what you said here and am trying to understand it. Are you saying that according to the Bible body and soul are inseparable?

[Hiroshi]

Off hand I can not recall if or how many times it is stated that "unbelievers express doubt that God could ever restore the dead to life" but that does make sense. I think it would be safe to assume many unbelievers do believe that.

Now about your claim the soul not being mentioned in the Qur'an------ one example:

23. The Believers (Al-Müminün) 103. But those whose balance is light, will be those who have lost their souls, in Hell will they abide.

Looking back at the history of the Abrahamic teachings I believe you will find that the belief in an eternal soul was and still is believed by the Jews. This would have been a very common belief, well known and taught in the synagogues at the the time Jesus(as) walked the streets of Jerusalem. If that is a wrong teaching, doesn't it make sense that at some point Jesus(as) would have addressed this belief and corrected it? No where is it shown that Jesus(as) disagreed with this belief of an immortal soul.

These are some of the things that Jesus said:

Matthew 10:28 “And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge·hen´na.”
Matthew 10:39 “He that finds his soul will lose it, and he that loses his soul for my sake will find it.”
Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.”
Mark 3:4 “Next he said to them: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?” But they kept silent.”
Luke 6:9 “Then Jesus said to them: “I ask you men, Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do injury, to save or to destroy a soul?””
Luke 17:33 “Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.”
John 12:25 “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.”

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I know that you have much more to do than answer our questions, but I'm still intrigued by what you said here and am trying to understand it. Are you saying that according to the Bible body and soul are inseparable?

As I think I said earlier, "soul" basically means the whole person. But on occasion the term can also mean the life of that person. Genesis 35:18 speaks of Rachel's life leaving her body as she died and the Hebrew literally says: "as her soul was going out".

But in the more usual sense the soul is spoken of as inseparable from the body. The Bible even speaks of a dead soul, meaning a dead body or corpse (Leviticus 19:28; Leviticus 21:1; Leviticus 21:11; Leviticus 22:4; Numbers 5:2; Numbers 6:6; Numbers 6:11; Numbers 9:6; Numbers 9:7; Numbers 9:10; Numbers 19:11; Numbers 19:13; Haggai 2:13).

[Hiroshi]

my respected brother there is a famous saying in Arabia and it is:

الحق أبلج و الباطل لجلج


Al Haqqu Ablaju Wa Al Baatilu luj`luju...


it means : the truth is clear and falsehood is weak and fades away


as Allah says: "And say: "Truth has come and Batil (falsehood) has vanished. Surely! Batil is ever bound to vanish." (81) " Surat Al Is`raa

May Allah guide us all before the day of Judgement...Ameeeen

Allahumma Bal`laght Allahumma fa`shhad ( O Allah I have told them ;O Allah be my witness)

peace and farewell

It is most helpful to compare the Bible with the Qur'an and see where the differences are.

Peace and farewell to you, Amat Allah.

[Woodrow]

These are some of the things that Jesus said:

Matthew 10:28 “And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge·hen´na.”
Matthew 10:39 “He that finds his soul will lose it, and he that loses his soul for my sake will find it.”
Matthew 16:25 “For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.”
Mark 3:4 “Next he said to them: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?” But they kept silent.”
Luke 6:9 “Then Jesus said to them: “I ask you men, Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good or to do injury, to save or to destroy a soul?””
Luke 17:33 “Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.”
John 12:25 “He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.”

Peace Hiroshi,

Are you certain Jesus(as) actually said those things. You have quotes from unidentified people. We do not even know who was the speaker of those words as the actual authors of the Gospels were not given names until later.

But even if is ever proven that those were said by true followers of Jesus, we do not know what was originally said in the original Aramaic. Mistranslation has to be considered unless we can accurately compare it with the actual original, not the earliest translation.

[Grace Seeker]

Can you help me to make sense of these two sets of posts:

As I think I said earlier, "soul" basically means the whole person. But on occasion the term can also mean the life of that person. Genesis 35:18 speaks of Rachel's life leaving her body as she died and the Hebrew literally says: "as her soul was going out".

But in the more usual sense the soul is spoken of as inseparable from the body. The Bible even speaks of a dead soul, meaning a dead body or corpse (Leviticus 19:28; Leviticus 21:1; Leviticus 21:11; Leviticus 22:4; Numbers 5:2; Numbers 6:6; Numbers 6:11; Numbers 9:6; Numbers 9:7; Numbers 9:10; Numbers 19:11; Numbers 19:13; Haggai 2:13).

Matthew 10:28 “And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge·hen´na.”

If, in the more usual sense the soul is spoken of as inseparable from the body, and if in fact the "soul" basically means the whole person, why does Jesus speak of those who who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul? This is clearly not just another of those times you refer to with the Bible speaking of a dead soul, for here we have just the opposite, a dead body and a living soul.

[Grace Seeker]

we do not know what was originally said in the original Aramaic. Mistranslation has to be considered unless we can accurately compare it with the actual original, not the earliest translation.

With respect Woodrow, I think that's a red herring. Not that the issue isn't important to you, but I don't think it is important to the question at hand. Hiroshi is basing his argument on the Bible as authoritative. So, whether the words of Jesus or someone else, whether proper representing a conversation originally had in Aramaic or a completely fabricated piece of fiction written in Greek, it is these writings that are received as being authoritative.

Your point doesn't become germane until someones is able to produce a record of the original Aramaic conversation, and even then only if it would also become acceptable as equally authoritative. Perhaps in an Islamic context it would be like challenging a Hadith that is accepted as authoritative and reliable by suggesting that another hadith (which might be true, but is as yet unauthenticated) says something to the contrary. For understanding the Sunnah, you would refer to what you have that is already accepted, rather than use that which is merely speculative.

However, I do have some other questions of Hiroshi's interpretation of those passages, based on a word study of the term psyche, that is translated here as "soul", which I hope to get to later today.

[Hiroshi]

Can you help me to make sense of these two sets of posts:

If, in the more usual sense the soul is spoken of as inseparable from the body, and if in fact the "soul" basically means the whole person, why does Jesus speak of those who who can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul? This is clearly not just another of those times you refer to with the Bible speaking of a dead soul, for here we have just the opposite, a dead body and a living soul.

In Matthew 10:28 "soul" refers to the life of the person which cannot be permanently taken away from him because God can give it back.

The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson renders Matthew 10:28 as: "Be not afraid of THOSE who KILL the BODY, but cannot destroy the [future] LIFE; but rather fear HIM who CAN utterly destroy both Life and Body in Gehenna."

Since God can resurrect the dead, even if we die we can hope for a future life and an enemy cannot take that away from us. Take note that Matthew 10:28 does not say that the soul is immortal. Rather it says that the soul can be destroyed in Gehanna.

[Hiroshi]

Peace Hiroshi,

Are you certain Jesus(as) actually said those things. You have quotes from unidentified people. We do not even know who was the speaker of those words as the actual authors of the Gospels were not given names until later.

But even if is ever proven that those were said by true followers of Jesus, we do not know what was originally said in the original Aramaic. Mistranslation has to be considered unless we can accurately compare it with the actual original, not the earliest translation.

Peace Woodrow.

If you look up any of those passages you will see from the context that Jesus is the one speaking. With this link:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

you can check any verse from the Bible. But you seem to have been taught to completely mistrust the Bible in any case.

[Woodrow]

Peace Woodrow.

If you look up any of those passages you will see from the context that Jesus is the one speaking. With this link:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

you can check any verse from the Bible. But you seem to have been taught to completely mistrust the Bible in any case.

I seem to have not made my point clear in my post. In my round about way I was trying to show that we do not accept the Bible as being authoritative. As far as "being taught" to mistrust the bible that came at least 20 years before I accepted Islam.

You are correct in saying I do not trust the Bible, but it is for reasons I found during my years as a Christian.

The point being here, is it is pointless to use the Bible as an authoritive text among people who believe it to be in error.

[Hiroshi]

I seem to have not made my point clear in my post. In my round about way I was trying to show that we do not accept the Bible as being authoritative. As far as "being taught" to mistrust the bible that came at least 20 years before I accepted Islam.

You are correct in saying I do not trust the Bible, but it is for reasons I found during my years as a Christian.

The point being here, is it is pointless to use the Bible as an authoritive text among people who believe it to be in error.

Well, the point that you were making at the start was that we should expect to see Jesus in the Bible presenting the correct view of the soul. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bible does show him doing that.

Charles Taze Russell also rejected the Bible in his early years. But then he went back to examine it again and found that he'd had the wrong picture about it the first time.

I would really like to know what caused you to mistrust the Bible during your years as a Christian.

[Woodrow]

Well, the point that you were making at the start was that we should expect to see Jesus in the Bible presenting the correct view of the soul. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bible does show him doing that.

Charles Taze Russell also rejected the Bible in his early years. But then he went back to examine it again and found that he'd had the wrong picture about it the first time.

I would really like to know what caused you to mistrust the Bible during your years as a Christian.

You are correct I did point out in the bible, what I saw as the biblical concept of soul.

I learned to distrust the bible when I was studying it as a Seminarian. At first I thought it was because I was studying from the Catholic perspective. But, after experiencing several other denominations I became more convinced that the bible had numerous errors, mostly in the NT, Some problems being that there is no verification of who the authors were except for Paul and standing alone Paul seems to have a different view of what the early Christians believe. No where in the NT can I find anything even claimed to be the "Word of God(swt). It all seems to be a record of observations by unreliable witnesses or even hear say.

[Hiroshi]

You are correct I did point out in the bible, what I saw as the biblical concept of soul.

I learned to distrust the bible when I was studying it as a Seminarian. At first I thought it was because I was studying from the Catholic perspective. But, after experiencing several other denominations I became more convinced that the bible had numerous errors, mostly in the NT, Some problems being that there is no verification of who the authors were except for Paul and standing alone Paul seems to have a different view of what the early Christians believe. No where in the NT can I find anything even claimed to be the "Word of God(swt). It all seems to be a record of observations by unreliable witnesses or even hear say.

In Islam it seems to be considered of great importance who it was that wrote or recorded sacred sacred writings whether of the Qur'an or the hadith. By contrast, the writers of the Bible did not seek to draw undue attention to themselves and often did not even name themselves.

What is of real importance is what the writings have to say rather than who recorded them. How can we be sure that the writings genuinely come from God? It is because God reveals things that only he could know. In Isaiah 46:10, God says: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Similarly, in the NT we read in Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John".

The Bible, the NT included, is packed with prophecy foretelling what the future will bring. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but also a great many have already had their fulfillment. We can see the fulfillment of what was recorded in advance and see that Bible prophecy is both accurate and reliable.

[Woodrow]

In Islam it seems to be considered of great importance who it was that wrote or recorded sacred sacred writings whether of the Qur'an or the hadith. By contrast, the writers of the Bible did not seek to draw undue attention to themselves and often did not even name themselves.

What is of real importance is what the writings have to say rather than who recorded them. How can we be sure that the writings genuinely come from God? It is because God reveals things that only he could know. In Isaiah 46:10, God says: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come." Similarly, in the NT we read in Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John".

The Bible, the NT included, is packed with prophecy foretelling what the future will bring. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but also a great many have already had their fulfillment. We can see the fulfillment of what was recorded in advance and see that Bible prophecy is both accurate and reliable.

While the speaker of the message is not the message and the message is the important matter. It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt). Verification of the source is needed if we are told the Message came from God(swt). There were several people claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Isa(as) and several of them even had the name Jesus. Without knowing the identity of the person reporting the account, how can we be certain they were even speaking about the true Messiah?

[Grace Seeker]

While the speaker of the message is not the message and the message is the important matter. It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt).

Woodrow, unless one actually hears God speak for one's self, I don't know how anyone could have "verifiable" knowledge that any specific message came from God. Of course, there are lots of things that we humans turn to: miracles, the integrity of the known author, harmony with other revelations believed to have been from God, but these are no guarantee. Whether one is reading the Bible, the Qur'an, or chicken bones it is we humans who project a divine source behind them that I submit cannot be verified in any one source better than another. Ultimately, for those who have no first hand experience in receiving the revelation, we accept what we do receive as being from God on faith.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, unless one actually hears God speak for one's self, I don't know how anyone could have "verifiable" knowledge that any specific message came from God. Of course, there are lots of things that we humans turn to: miracles, the integrity of the known author, harmony with other revelations believed to have been from God, but these are no guarantee. Whether one is reading the Bible, the Qur'an, or chicken bones it is we humans who project a divine source behind them that I submit cannot be verified in any one source better than another. Ultimately, for those who have no first hand experience in receiving the revelation, we accept what we do receive as being from God on faith.

True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

[Grace Seeker]

True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

Granted. And, in my opinion, whether talking OT, NT, or Qur'an we are generally dealing with people whose character we do know -- I don't buy the argument many Muslims make that we don't know the NT authors (except for Hebrews, and even there I think the letter tells us about the author's character). It's really only in the ahadith that I find myself wondering about who these people are that are relaying these stories and chains of transmission to us and their reliability. But maybe if I was more versed in Islamic history I wouldn't have those problems.

[Hiroshi]

It does seem that those hearing such would have a need to know who the source was. without that verifiable knowledge, what proof is there that the message even came from God(swt).

I told you the proof. If the message accurately foretells the future then it must be from God. It is impossible for mere men to predict what great nations will arise to dominate world affairs centuries in advance. But the Bible does that. Isaiah 44:27-28 foretold 200 years in advance that a king named Cyrus would restore the Jews to their homeland by drying up the rivers. History records that Cyrus the Persian diverted the waters of the river Euphrates by digging a channel. The Persian soldiers then invaded the city of Babylon by marching along the dried up river bed. Babylon fell to the Medes and the Persians in a single night and the Jews were freed to return from exile to Jerusalem. Cyrus was named here even before this man was born!

There were several people claiming to be the Messiah at the time of Isa(as) and several of them even had the name Jesus. Without knowing the identity of the person reporting the account, how can we be certain they were even speaking about the true Messiah?

Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

[Grace Seeker]

Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

Hiroshi, while I buy that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, I have Jewish friends who point to other prophecies that they claim are messianic that he did not fulfill. And I know non-Christians biblical scholars (and a few scholars so liberal it's hard to tell them from non-Christians) who argue that some of what is seen as fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus in the NT is mythological material added after the fact to make it appear that he fulfilled prophecies that we really don't have a way of verifying, just like Woodrow is questioning.

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, while I buy that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, I have Jewish friends who point to other prophecies that they claim are messianic that he did not fulfill. And I know non-Christians biblical scholars (and a few scholars so liberal it's hard to tell them from non-Christians) who argue that some of what is seen as fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus in the NT is mythological material added after the fact to make it appear that he fulfilled prophecies that we really don't have a way of verifying, just like Woodrow is questioning.

I see. Can you please give more details?

[Grace Seeker]

I see. Can you please give more details?

I knew you would ask for details. With regard to the liberal scholars claims, yes I can. I'm sure you've read yourself though. People who say that Matthew only put in the part about Jesus being born of a virgin because of the Isaiah passage. Others who try to make much out of Luke having Jesus and his family return directly to Nazareth and Matthew have his family go first to Egypt and then Nazareth. Their arguments are that ostensibly Jesus is just a Galilean peasant and that Matthew is after the fact looking at a check list of prophecies for the Messiah and then adding details to Jesus' life in order that it can appear that he fulfilled them. There's more, but I know you are well-read enough to have encountered those things as much as I have.

The more serious issue, in my opinion, are the claims by Jews that there are messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. And right now, no, I cannot provide more details. I learned about them here on the board from some of the Jewish posters we used to have. But I didn't copy their lists. Perhaps if I spent some time surfing some Jewish websites they may be listed there. I don't know.

[Hiroshi]

I knew you would ask for details. With regard to the liberal scholars claims, yes I can. I'm sure you've read yourself though. People who say that Matthew only put in the part about Jesus being born of a virgin because of the Isaiah passage. Others who try to make much out of Luke having Jesus and his family return directly to Nazareth and Matthew have his family go first to Egypt and then Nazareth. Their arguments are that ostensibly Jesus is just a Galilean peasant and that Matthew is after the fact looking at a check list of prophecies for the Messiah and then adding details to Jesus' life in order that it can appear that he fulfilled them. There's more, but I know you are well-read enough to have encountered those things as much as I have.

The more serious issue, in my opinion, are the claims by Jews that there are messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. And right now, no, I cannot provide more details. I learned about them here on the board from some of the Jewish posters we used to have. But I didn't copy their lists. Perhaps if I spent some time surfing some Jewish websites they may be listed there. I don't know.

If the four gospels agreed exactly in content and in every detail then they would not have such value. It might even suggest that the writers copied one another rather than testifying as independent witnesses. We can be very glad that some gospel writers include details that the other three leave out because it gives us more information. More than 40% of Matthew's gospel is unique and contains material not found in the other accounts. But I don't see that as a reason to doubt what he says. He wrote mainly for the Jews and included a great many prophecies that saw fulfillment in Jesus. That is one reason why the book of Matthew is so important.

[IAmZamzam]

Again, Bible prophecy is the answer. There were about 200 separate prophecies about the Messiah in the scriptures. Only Jesus (or Isa) fulfilled them all.

Every time I have ever heard a Christian say that (and I do quite literally mean every time) they have always given a different number. Every. Single. Time. I've heard everywhere from fifty to numbers in the thousands. Almost as though different people force different Messianic interpretations on different passages. Now what does that remind me of?

[Grace Seeker]

While many prophecies are clear, I also think some prophecies can be hard to identify. It seems reasonable that sometimes we might not even recognize a prophetic statement to be that at the time it was made. Is the wife who learns about her husband's plan for a new, but untried business being prophetic or just an unsupportive worrier when she says "I fear this will end badly"? So, it does not surprise me that those who try to identify and count the number of prophecies in the OT about Jesus would have differing counts, for one person will see a given statement as being prophetic and others will see others.

As to the present day Jewish view, the following is represents an understanding of their current expectations with regard to the Messiah:

What is the Messiah (Mashiach) supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

1) Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

2) Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

3) Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

4) Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

The messiah will be a regular human being, born naturally to husband and wife. He is not to be a god, nor a man born of supernatural or virgin birth. The very idea that God would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts our concept of God as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe that G-d ALONE is to be worshipped, and not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the messiah himself.

(source: Rabbi Shraga Simmons @ Ask Rabbi Simmons)

Against both Christian and Muslim beliefs that Jesus is the Messiah, modern Jews posit the following:

According to the prophets of the Bible, amongst the most basic missions of the messiah are:

• to cause all the world to return to G-d and His teachings,
• to restore the royal dynasty to the descendants of David,
• to oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt;
• to gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel,
• and to reestablish the sanhedrin,
• restore the sacrificial system,
• as well as the Sabbatical year and Jubilee.

You have stated that in the New Testament it is written that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies of the prophets and the law. But which of these above requirements did Jesus fulfill? And if he is going to fulfill them the second time, why did he not attend to them the first time? This in itself is one concept which no amount of Biblical sleuthing can find a prophetic basis for - FOR THE NOTION THAT THE MESSIAH DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS UPON HIS APPEARANCE, AND THEREFORE MUST RETURN A SECOND TIME, DOES NOT EXIST IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. WHEREVER THESE THINGS ARE FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, WE ARE TOLD THAT THE MESSIAH COMES AND DOES THESE THINGS - ONCE. Where in the Old Testament is there even the faintest allusion to such a concept, that the messiah does not complete the job, and therefore returns a second time? Every prophecy about the messiah makes it clear that he comes once and does the job.


(emphasis original)
(source: excerpt from a letter by Rabbi Chaim Richman, The Rabbi Responds: A Jewish View of the Messiah)

[Hiroshi]

Every time I have ever heard a Christian say that (and I do quite literally mean every time) they have always given a different number. Every. Single. Time. I've heard everywhere from fifty to numbers in the thousands. Almost as though different people force different Messianic interpretations on different passages. Now what does that remind me of?

Surely we agree though that Jesus or Isa was both Messiah and prophet?

[Hiroshi]

While many prophecies are clear, I also think some prophecies can be hard to identify. It seems reasonable that sometimes we might not even recognize a prophetic statement to be that at the time it was made. Is the wife who learns about her husband's plan for a new, but untried business being prophetic or just an unsupportive worrier when she says "I fear this will end badly"? So, it does not surprise me that those who try to identify and count the number of prophecies in the OT about Jesus would have differing counts, for one person will see a given statement as being prophetic and others will see others.

As to the present day Jewish view, the following is represents an understanding of their current expectations with regard to the Messiah:



Against both Christian and Muslim beliefs that Jesus is the Messiah, modern Jews posit the following:

Thanks for the info. I don't have time to comment on everything. But the words in Isaiah 43:5-6 were fulfilled in a literal sense when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon and afterwards restored the exiled Jews back to their home land. And in a spiritual sense Jesus also fulfills the prophecy by releasing those ensnared by false religion which is represented in Revelation chapters 17 to 19 by a great kingdom called "Babylon the Great".

[جوري]

Surely we agree though that Jesus or Isa was both Messiah and prophet?

What does 'Messiah' mean to you?

by Ahmad Deedat

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....

Genesis 31:13

If the priest that is ANOINTED do sin....

Leviticus 4:3

And Moses....ANOINTED the tabernacle and all things that was therein...

Leviticus 8:10

...THE LORD SHALL....EXALT THE HORN OF HIS ANOINTED

1 Samuel 2:10

Thus saith the Lord to his ANOINTED to Cyrus....

Isaiah 45:1

Thou art the ANOINTED cherub....

Ezekiel 28:14

There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.
SOME TITLES EXCLUSIVE

Although, every prophet of God is an ANOINTED one of God - a Messiah, the title "Masih" or "Messiah" or its translation "CHRIST" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific title which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasul-lullah", meaning Messenger of God, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasul-lullah" has become synonymous only with the Prophet of Islam among Muslims.
Every prophet is indeed a FRIEND OF GOD, but its Arabic equivalent "Kha- lil-lullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kalimul-lah" (One who spoke with God) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His Messengers, including Jesus and Muhummed (May the Peace and Blessings of God be upon all His servants). Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.

Reference: http://www.islam101.com/religions/de..._in_islam4.htm




all the best

[Hiroshi]

What does 'Messiah' mean to you?

As you rightly say, both Messiah and Christ mean the same thing: "anointed". Kings and priests of ancient times were anointed with oil when they received their commission to act as such. Jesus will rule as king over the whole earth and also act as the high priest for all mankind.

Others aside from Jesus were also spoken of as anointed of course, such as Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1. Also Hebrews 11:26 says that Moses esteemed "the reproach of the Christ" as greater than all the treasures of Egypt. So here Moses is referred to as "the Christ".

[جوري]

Jesus will rule as king over the whole earth and also act as the high priest for all mankind.

That is a nice addendum.. but we clearly see from above that different honorific titles were bestowed upon different messengers.

all the best

[Hiroshi]

That is a nice addendum.. but we clearly see from above that different honorific titles were bestowed upon different messengers.

all the best

Well, if other "anointed ones" could be kings or priests, why can't Jesus?

[جوري]

Well, if other "anointed ones" could be kings or priests, why can't Jesus?

Jesus anointment marks his prophet-hood indeed.

all the best

[Hiroshi]

Jesus anointment marks his prophet-hood indeed.

all the best

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

[Hiroshi]

True

But if we know the identity of the person who received the revelation, we have a better chance of evaluating our reason to believe it to be true or false.

While "Ned, the neighborhood wino" may have a gift for beautiful writing I would hesitate in accepting what He writes as being the Words of God(swt) or even near truth. I think I would be more inclined to believe it if I knew the source was Abraham (PBUH) or Moses(PBUH).

Hey Woodrow, on quite a different subject, why was the thread on "Free will and an all knowing God" closed down? Did I do something wrong again?

[Woodrow]

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

Just my own thought. I believe he would have been already anointed at the time of, or before the first miracle Allaah(awt) performed through him. Besides his miraculous birth the earliest miracle I can find is:

Quran Surah 19. Mary

27. At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!

28. "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!"

29. But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

30. He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;

31. "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live;

32. "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

33. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"!

34. Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.

[جوري]

Any thoughts as to when and how Jesus was anointed?

My understanding is that he was anointed by John the baptist!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

My understanding is that he was anointed by John the baptist!

all the best

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

[Woodrow]

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

[جوري]

It looks like you and Woodrow disagree on this then. Anyway thanks for sharing your view.

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

exactly.. no disagreement.. I wouldn't go so far as call it a ceremony personally these alleged 'baptismal' ceremonies are a modern invent, but what occurred is akin to that and marks his prophethood as the king of the Jews, their awaited Messiah.. Not a god for mankind ..


all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Hiroshi, from a JW point of view, when do you see Jesus anointed as "the Christ"?

Is he born as God's anointed?
Has it happend by the time he is found in the temple at the age of twelve and tells his mother that he had to be "in my Father's house"?
Is in at the moment of his baptism when the voice from heaven declares: "This is my beloved Son"?
Is it only when he takes humanities sin upone himself on the cross?
Is it when God confirms his role in the resurrection?
or
Is it not until later when he is ascended and glorified, and only when his the true nature of Jesus as the Christ becomes revealed to his disciples that he actually becomes the Christ?

Or maybe you have yet some other time in mind. If so, when?

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, from a JW point of view, when do you see Jesus anointed as "the Christ"?

Is he born as God's anointed?
Has it happend by the time he is found in the temple at the age of twelve and tells his mother that he had to be "in my Father's house"?
Is in at the moment of his baptism when the voice from heaven declares: "This is my beloved Son"?
Is it only when he takes humanities sin upone himself on the cross?
Is it when God confirms his role in the resurrection?
or
Is it not until later when he is ascended and glorified, and only when his the true nature of Jesus as the Christ becomes revealed to his disciples that he actually becomes the Christ?

Or maybe you have yet some other time in mind. If so, when?

I believe that Jesus was anointed, not with oil, but with God's holy spirit (which John saw descending like a dove) at the time of his baptism. His followers likewise were anointed at Pentecost when tongues of fire appeared upon their heads as evidence of God's spirit. These ones will also reign as kings with Jesus Christ over the earth (Revelation 20:6).

[Hiroshi]

Far from a disagreement. We both agree he was anointed. I admit I do not know what it would specifically take as an action to show when he was. It just seems to me that if he was saying he was a Prophet(PBUH) he was already one. My sister is mentioning what would be the physical ceremony. I just think he was already anointed before there was any visible ceremony

Just to show a few facts and figures, Daniel 9:25 foretold that the Messiah would appear 69 weeks (the prophecy says: "7 weeks, also 62 weeks"; 7 + 62 = 69) after "the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem". This took place as recorded at Nehemiah 2:7-8 at the time of the month Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king of Persia (Nehemiah 2:1). That would have been in the year 455 BCE.

The 69 weeks are understood to mean weeks of years. So the time counting from the year 455 BCE until the Messiah would be 69 x 7 = 483 years. That brings us to the year 29 CE (there was no year zero). Jesus was born about 2 BCE or 1 BCE and was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. This indicates that the year of his baptism was also 29 CE.

Hence it is reasonable to see Jesus as becoming the Messiah or Christ at the time of his baptism. He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit which John saw descending upon Jesus from heaven (Luke 3:22).

[Woodrow]

Just to show a few facts and figures, Daniel 9:25 foretold that the Messiah would appear 69 weeks (the prophecy says: "7 weeks, also 62 weeks"; 7 + 62 = 69) after "the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem". This took place as recorded at Nehemiah 2:7-8 at the time of the month Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes the king of Persia (Nehemiah 2:1). That would have been in the year 455 BCE.

The 69 weeks are understood to mean weeks of years. So the time counting from the year 455 BCE until the Messiah would be 69 x 7 = 483 years. That brings us to the year 29 CE (there was no year zero). Jesus was born about 2 BCE or 1 BCE and was "about 30 years old" (Luke 3:23) at his baptism. This indicates that the year of his baptism was also 29 CE.

Hence it is reasonable to see Jesus as becoming the Messiah or Christ at the time of his baptism. He was not anointed with oil but with God's spirit which John saw descending upon Jesus from heaven (Luke 3:22).

I see that as the work of somebody very skilled at reverse engineering. Who came up with the idea of weeks of years? Also the establishment of Jesus(as) birth as 1 or 2 BC takes a little playing with the Death of Herod. We do know Jesus(as) was born during the reign of Herod and if memory serves me right Jesus(as) was born in the 35 year of his reign and Herod died in his 37 year. It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

[Grace Seeker]

It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

Though I don't believe Quinirius was not governor of Judea in 6 BC. I have yet to see a truly solid date established for Jesus' birth and find the range of 6-4 BC most common.

[Woodrow]

Though I don't believe Quinirius was not governor of Judea in 6 BC. I have yet to see a truly solid date established for Jesus' birth and find the range of 6-4 BC most common.

I am willing to agree with the range. Quininius does put a bit of a crimp in finding the exact Date as it is difficult to place Quininius as Governor of Judea and ordering the Census before the Death of Herod. But I do concede that however we base our claim on the birth of Jesus(as) it is pretty much a certainty it had to be in the range of 6-4 BC.

[Hiroshi]

I see that as the work of somebody very skilled at reverse engineering. Who came up with the idea of weeks of years?

Part of Daniel's prophecy shows that the Messiah would be put to death "at the half of the week" (Daniel 9:27). But Jesus preached for three and a half years, not three and a half days. This shows that each week represented seven years. Also, at the time of Jesus' baptism the Jews were already "in expectation" that the Christ would appear. That is why they asked if John the Baptist might be the Christ (Luke 3:15). The Jews must have already worked out that the weeks must stand for weeks of years. In a number of other prophecies a day stands for a year (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6).

Also the establishment of Jesus(as) birth as 1 or 2 BC takes a little playing with the Death of Herod. We do know Jesus(as) was born during the reign of Herod and if memory serves me right Jesus(as) was born in the 35 year of his reign and Herod died in his 37 year. It is well established Herod died in 4 BC Placing the birth of Jesus(as) at 6 BC.

This is a good point. In answer, I would like to quote "Insight on the Scriptures" Volume 1, pages 1093-1095, published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

Date of His Death. A problem arises with regard to the time of Herod’s death. Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a “consular dating,” that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this, Herod’s appointment as king would be in 40 B.C.E., but the data of another historian, Appianos, would place the event in 39 B.C.E. By the same method Josephus places Herod’s capture of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E., but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 B.C.E.). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) His reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod’s taking the city of Jerusalem 36 B.C.E. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 or perhaps 1 B.C.E.
It may be that the Jewish historian Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession-year method, as had been done with the kings of the line of David. If Herod was appointed king by Rome in 40 B.C.E., his first regnal year could run from Nisan of 39 to Nisan of 38 B.C.E.; similarly, if counted from his capture of Jerusalem in 37 (or 36) B.C.E., his first regnal year could start in Nisan 36 (or 35) B.C.E. So if, as Josephus says, Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem, and if those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year, his death could have been in 1 B.C.E. Presenting an argument to this effect in The Journal of Theological Studies, W. E. Filmer writes that evidence from Jewish tradition indicates that Herod’s death occurred on Shebat 2 (the month of Shebat falls in January-February of our calendar).—Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284.
According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.
On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E., about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 B.C.E. was only partial. The total eclipse in 1 B.C.E. was on January 8 (January 10, Julian), 18 days before Shebat 2, the traditional day of Herod’s death. Another eclipse (partial) occurred on December 27 of 1 B.C.E. (December 29, Julian).—See CHRONOLOGY (Lunar eclipses).
Another line of calculation centers around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 B.C.E.), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herod’s death occurred in 2 or 1 B.C.E. We must bear in mind, however, that Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is therefore not the most reliable source. For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible.
The available evidence indicates that Herod died likely in the year 1 B.C.E. The Bible historian Luke tells us that John came baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Lu 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. The Romans did not use the accession-year system; consequently, the 15th year would run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E. John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry (evidently in the spring of the year) ahead of Jesus as Jesus’ forerunner, preparing the way. (Lu 1:35, 36) Jesus, whom the Bible indicates was born in the fall of the year, was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized. (Lu 3:21-23) Therefore he was baptized, most likely, in the fall, about October of 29 C.E. Counting back 30 years would bring us to the fall of 2 B.C.E. as the time of the human birth of the Son of God. (Compare Lu 3:1, 23 with Daniel’s prophecy of the “seventy weeks” at Da 9:24-27.)—See SEVENTY WEEKS.
The astrologers who visited Jesus. The apostle Matthew tells us that after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem “in the days of Herod the king,” astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, saying that they saw his star when they were in the east. Herod’s fears and suspicions were immediately aroused, and he determined from the chief priests and scribes that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. Then he called in the astrologers and ascertained from them the time of the star’s appearing.—Mt 2:1-7.
We note that this was sometime after Jesus’ birth, for he was now not in the manger but with his parents in a house. (Mt 2:11; compare Lu 2:4-7.) After the astrologers failed to return to Herod with news of the young child’s whereabouts, the king ordered the slaughter of all the children two years of age and under throughout Bethlehem and its districts. Jesus, in the meantime, was taken to Egypt by his parents because of God’s warning. (Mt 2:12-18) The death of Herod could hardly have taken place before 1 B.C.E., for, in that case, Jesus (born about October 1, 2 B.C.E.) would have been less than three months old.
On the other hand, it would not be necessary for Jesus to be two years old when the killing of the children occurred; he could even have been less than a year old, for Herod calculated from the time that the star appeared to the astrologers while they were in the east. (Mt 2:1, 2, 7-9) This may well have been a period of some months, for if the astrologers came from the age-old center of astrology, Babylon or Mesopotamia, as is likely the case, it was a very long journey. It had taken the Israelites at least four months to make the trip when they were repatriated from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. Herod evidently concluded that by killing all babies up to two years of age he would be sure to get this one who was born “king of the Jews.” (Mt 2:2) That Herod died not long after these things took place is indicated by the fact that Jesus apparently did not stay in Egypt very long.—Mt 2:19-21.
We may conclude, therefore, that Bible chronology, astronomical data, and available historical records seem to point to the time of Herod’s death as 1 B.C.E., or possibly even early in 1 C.E.

[Grace Seeker]

Hiroshi, thanks for your views thus far. How about a new question (or set of questions)...
Do JWs believe that there is a single specific interpretation of scripture that is correct implying that all other understandings but that one accepted way of interpreting a text would be wrong? Or do they allow that there might be many different levels of understanding and teaching that are revealed in the scripture (at least some portions of it) and thus it is more important to learn how to apply the scripture so that it fits one's individual and personal life than it is to create a one-size-fits-all understanding of the passage that all believers must adopt and apply the same way?

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, thanks for your views thus far. How about a new question (or set of questions)...
Do JWs believe that there is a single specific interpretation of scripture that is correct implying that all other understandings but that one accepted way of interpreting a text would be wrong? Or do they allow that there might be many different levels of understanding and teaching that are revealed in the scripture (at least some portions of it) and thus it is more important to learn how to apply the scripture so that it fits one's individual and personal life than it is to create a one-size-fits-all understanding of the passage that all believers must adopt and apply the same way?

Some scriptures in the Bible have more than one meaning. Hosea 11:1 says: "out of Egypt I called my son". This is a reference to the Israelites being freed from bondage in slavery to the Egyptians in Moses' time. But it is also a prophecy about Jesus being brought back from Egypt after his family had fled there to escape Herod.

But at the same time, many widely accepted notions about certain passages are completely wrong, based on a clear misunderstanding of scripture. For example Matthew 16:18 records Jesus speaking to Peter saying: "I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church". Catholics wrongly interpret this to mean that the church of Christ would be built upon Peter and that Peter would be the first Pope. But other scriptures show that the "rock" was Christ, not Peter. Jesus was making reference to himself.

[IAmZamzam]

Some scriptures in the Bible have more than one meaning. Hosea 11:1 says: "out of Egypt I called my son".

I never cease to find it funny just how very many biblical "prophecies" are in the past tense.

[Hiroshi]

I never cease to find it funny just how very many biblical "prophecies" are in the past tense.

God's purpose is so sure to be fulfilled that in many cases events are spoken about as if they have already happened. For example, Revelation 20:9-10 says "They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown." All in the past tense. And yet these things are due to happen a thousand years in the future (Revelation 20:7).

[Insaanah]

Greetings Hiroshi,

A couple of questions popped into my head, so I hope you don't mind if I ask.

I have read that active Jehovahs Witnesses have to log at weekly meetings at the Kingdom Hall they attend, how many hours they have spent on proselytizing/missionary work, how many converts they have made etc, and that this data is forwarded monthly by each Kingdom Hall to the international Jehovah's Witness Headquarters in Brooklyn. Is this the case?

If so, do you log the time you spend on your posts on this forum as part of that? Although you are not allowed to proselytize here, you do tell us what the Jehovahs Witnesses believe, when we ask, as in this thread, and articulate your beliefs in others. Do you log that?

Peace.

[IAmZamzam]

God's purpose is so sure to be fulfilled that in many cases events are spoken about as if they have already happened.

Do I have to respond to this?? Really?? Is there anything I could say to someone who would put forth that argument that would make any difference at all???

Revelation is one of the most contested books of the Bible, both in terms of whether or not it should be trusted (by anyone who isn't a complete inerrantist) and what the holy heck it's even talking about in the first place. It is more than just temporally disjointed. Here is the full context of the passage from Hosea, which like just about all of the so-called Messianic prophecies is always suspiciously missing:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them, the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and burning incense to idols. Yet it was I who taught E'phraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one, who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.

And only after that does it actually start prophesying—about entirely different things:

They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me. The sword shall rage against their cities, consume the bars of their gates, and devour them in their fortresses. My people are bent on turning away from me; so they are appointed to the yoke, and none shall remove it. How can I give you up, O E'phraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel! How can I make you like Admah! How can I treat you like Zeboi'im! My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy E'phraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come to destroy. They shall go after the LORD, he will roar like a lion; yea, he will roar, and his sons shall come trembling from the west; they shall come trembling like birds from Egypt, and like doves from the land of Assyria; and I will return them to their homes, says the LORD. E'phraim has encompassed me with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit; but Judah is still known by God, and is faithful to the Holy One.

I’m surprised you didn’t take the “they shall go after the LORD” part out of context too. Probably you’re still planning on it. I can just fire right back with an out-of-context "I am God and not man."

[Hiroshi]

Greetings Hiroshi,

A couple of questions popped into my head, so I hope you don't mind if I ask.

I have read that active Jehovahs Witnesses have to log at weekly meetings at the Kingdom Hall they attend, how many hours they have spent on proselytizing/missionary work, how many converts they have made etc, and that this data is forwarded monthly by each Kingdom Hall to the international Jehovah's Witness Headquarters in Brooklyn. Is this the case?

If so, do you log the time you spend on your posts on this forum as part of that? Although you are not allowed to proselytize here, you do tell us what the Jehovahs Witnesses believe, when we ask, as in this thread, and articulate your beliefs in others. Do you log that?

Peace.

No. I'm trying to make friends here, that's all.

[Hiroshi]

Do I have to respond to this?? Really?? Is there anything I could say to someone who would put forth that argument that would make any difference at all???

Revelation is one of the most contested books of the Bible, both in terms of whether or not it should be trusted (by anyone who isn't a complete inerrantist) and what the holy heck it's even talking about in the first place.

Jesus spoke many things in riddles or parables. Many of the people in the crowds that listened to him had little interest to find out what he was talking about and went away in ignorance. But his own disciples were keen to know what things Jesus was teaching and later questioned him. Jesus was happy to explain the parables to those who really wanted to learn.

The book of Revelation can be understood in the light of other books in the Bible. For example, the beast with the number 666 corresponds to the kingdoms of Daniel's prophecy which are represented by beasts. But if you are inclined to dismiss Revelation without even wanting to know what it says then you will never understand it's message.

[IAmZamzam]

How convenient that you totally overlook my exposure of the Hosea thing. Forget about Revelation.

[Rabi Mansur]

Greetings Hiroshi,

A couple of questions popped into my head, so I hope you don't mind if I ask.

I have read that active Jehovahs Witnesses have to log at weekly meetings at the Kingdom Hall they attend, how many hours they have spent on proselytizing/missionary work, how many converts they have made etc, and that this data is forwarded monthly by each Kingdom Hall to the international Jehovah's Witness Headquarters in Brooklyn. Is this the case?

If so, do you log the time you spend on your posts on this forum as part of that? Although you are not allowed to proselytize here, you do tell us what the Jehovahs Witnesses believe, when we ask, as in this thread, and articulate your beliefs in others. Do you log that?

Peace.

:sl:

Hey, I would count it. ;D

Why not? I would find it extremely hard to go door to door in this day and age seeking converts. I would think that participating on the forum might be as effective as some of the door to door contacting.

I work with a JW lady and she likes to take Fridays off so she can proselyte. We don't really have a problem with it, when things are slow we even let her sit and read her literature. It is better than having people sit and idly chatter. It tends to keep her in a serious frame of mind.

But OTOH we don't allow proselytizing on the job either.
:wa:

[Hiroshi]

How convenient that you totally overlook my exposure of the Hosea thing. Forget about Revelation.

Well, often in a passage of scripture there is a brief mention of something that has a special cryptic meaning. It is true that the main subject of that part of Hosea had to do with the details of what would happen to the Israelites as punishment from God. But those words in Hosea 11:1 "out of Egypt I called my son" do apply to Jesus.

Similarly Psalms chapter 16 has as its main subject the prayer of king David in his affliction. But there is a curious sentence in verse 10: "For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave." (New Living Translation). David seems to be speaking about himself here. And yet he died and was buried and he did indeed rot in the grave. So the words in verse 10 could not apply to David. In fact the words apply to Jesus as is explained in Acts 2:29-31: "Dear brothers, think about this! You can be sure that the patriarch David wasn’t referring to himself, for he died and was buried, and his tomb is still here among us. But he was a prophet, and he knew God had promised with an oath that one of David’s own descendants would sit on his throne. David was looking into the future and speaking of the Messiah’s resurrection. He was saying that God would not leave him among the dead or allow his body to rot in the grave."

So here we have a passage that is mainly concerned with David's prayer. But there in verse 10 is a mention of something that is clearly a Messianic prophecy.

[Hiroshi]

:sl:

Hey, I would count it. ;D

Why not? I would find it extremely hard to go door to door in this day and age seeking converts. I would think that participating on the forum might be as effective as some of the door to door contacting.

I work with a JW lady and she likes to take Fridays off so she can proselyte. We don't really have a problem with it, when things are slow we even let her sit and read her literature. It is better than having people sit and idly chatter. It tends to keep her in a serious frame of mind.

But OTOH we don't allow proselytizing on the job either.
:wa:

Where is that? In America? Going from door to door is a challenge especially for someone like me who is naturally shy. But it is a nice way and an effective way to get the Bible's message to people. Jesus' disciples preached from house to house (Acts 20:20).

[Rabi Mansur]

Where is that? In America? Going from door to door is a challenge especially for someone like me who is naturally shy. But it is a nice way and an effective way to get the Bible's message to people. Jesus' disciples preached from house to house (Acts 20:20).

Yeah, I'm in the USA, pacific Northwest. I feel for you going door to door. When I was a Mormon I did that for two years as a missionary. I really hated it. I'm fairly shy too.

The JWs were more effective than we were in their proselyting efforts. I think Mormons have a more difficult message for people to accept than the one taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.

I've had employees and clients who were JW and I always got along great with them. But I always felt like they had to isolate themselves on some level because of what other people in their congregation might think. There was always a bit of a wall there if you weren't JW.

[IAmZamzam]

Well, often in a passage of scripture there is a brief mention of something that has a special cryptic meaning. It is true that the main subject of that part of Hosea had to do with the details of what would happen to the Israelites as punishment from God. But those words in Hosea 11:1 "out of Egypt I called my son" do apply to Jesus.

Similarly Psalms chapter 16 has as its main subject the prayer of king David in his affliction. But there is a curious sentence in verse 10: "For you will not leave my soul among the dead or allow your holy one to rot in the grave." (New Living Translation). David seems to be speaking about himself here. And yet he died and was buried and he did indeed rot in the grave. So the words in verse 10 could not apply to David. In fact the words apply to Jesus as is explained in Acts 2:29-31: "Dear brothers, think about this! You can be sure that the patriarch David wasn’t referring to himself, for he died and was buried, and his tomb is still here among us. But he was a prophet, and he knew God had promised with an oath that one of David’s own descendants would sit on his throne. David was looking into the future and speaking of the Messiah’s resurrection. He was saying that God would not leave him among the dead or allow his body to rot in the grave."

So here we have a passage that is mainly concerned with David's prayer. But there in verse 10 is a mention of something that is clearly a Messianic prophecy.

Why should I believe that?? What reason have I??

[Hiroshi]

Why should I believe that?? What reason have I??

Sura 4:163 says: "to David We gave the Psalms." Why do you reject what Allah has given?

[Hiroshi]

Yeah, I'm in the USA, pacific Northwest. I feel for you going door to door. When I was a Mormon I did that for two years as a missionary. I really hated it. I'm fairly shy too.

The JWs were more effective than we were in their proselyting efforts. I think Mormons have a more difficult message for people to accept than the one taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.

I've had employees and clients who were JW and I always got along great with them. But I always felt like they had to isolate themselves on some level because of what other people in their congregation might think. There was always a bit of a wall there if you weren't JW.

Well, that's nice to hear. I'm glad that you got on well with them. I have had a few Mormons call at my door and I was interested to know what they had to say. And they gave me the book of Mormon to read. It had beautiful illustrations.

What I found curious was that the book of Mormon is said to be miraculously translated from golden plates. But whole passages in it are word for word quotes from the King James Bible.

[IAmZamzam]

Sura 4:163 says: "to David We gave the Psalms." Why do you reject what Allah has given?

What I meant was, why should I believe this oddly convenient notion that even though in context the "Messianic prophecies" obviously do not mean anything Messianic at all, somehow they still do? I've hardly ever heard such a weak support or such an obvious rationalization for anything. Christians yet wonder why people don't believe in Christianity with all these "propechies" about, even though they admit that nothing about the context of the passages suggests such a prophecy! Do you think that we all use the same slanted, twisted exegetical logic ourselves? Does it seem so strange to you that context should matter to us? Did I not remind you that I could do the same thing to prove my own point? If you can isolate that opening verse from the Hosea passage, I can isolate the verse from the same passage about God not being a man.

[Rabi Mansur]

What I found curious was that the book of Mormon is said to be miraculously translated from golden plates. But whole passages in it are word for word quotes from the King James Bible.

Bingo. Curious indeed. And it gets curiouser and curiouser the more you study it.

[Hiroshi]

What I meant was, why should I believe this oddly convenient notion that even though in context the "Messianic prophecies" obviously do not mean anything Messianic at all, somehow they still do? I've hardly ever heard such a weak support or such an obvious rationalization for anything. Christians yet wonder why people don't believe in Christianity with all these "propechies" about, even though they admit that nothing about the context of the passages suggests such a prophecy! Do you think that we all use the same slanted, twisted exegetical logic ourselves? Does it seem so strange to you that context should matter to us? Did I not remind you that I could do the same thing to prove my own point? If you can isolate that opening verse from the Hosea passage, I can isolate the verse from the same passage about God not being a man.

Well, Muslims say that Muhammad is prophetically mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 "Hikko mamittankim we kullo Muhammadim" although the surrounding context says nothing about a prophet.

I agree with you that God is not a man.

[Hiroshi]

Bingo. Curious indeed. And it gets curiouser and curiouser the more you study it.

Is that why you became a Muslim instead?

[Woodrow]

Another Question, I notice on the JW sites that the official number of JWs living world wide is 7.5 million. The USA has 1.2 Million making it the country with the largest number. Do you have any explanation as to why the world wide Number of JWs is so low and why about 1/4 of them live in the USA?

[IAmZamzam]

Well, Muslims say that Muhammad is prophetically mentioned by name in Song of Solomon 5:16 "Hikko mamittankim we kullo Muhammadim" although the surrounding context says nothing about a prophet.

You're making an overgeneralization—although I think admirably unintentionally and innocently, which is refreshing considering some of the people and rhetoric I have to deal with around here. It is not part of Islamic doctrine to think any particular thing about the Song of Songs, and I never said anything about it whatsoever so again you're kind of putting words in my mouth. In fact, with one possible exception I'm not at all sure that a lot of the "Muhammad (P) in the Bible" theories weren't from the start strictly invented by da'is with their own forced reinterpretations in very much the same way that the “Messianic” prophecies were just the forced reinterpretations of Christians. (Even the Deuteronomy 18 thing is still tempered by the x-factor that is the corruption of the Bible.) So you may have made a better and truer point than you will ever know, actually.

I agree with you that God is not a man.

Do you indeed??

[Rabi Mansur]

Is that why you became a Muslim instead?

I basically studied my way out of Mormonism over 10 years ago. It took a long time for me to embrace anything else although I looked at a lot of different religions over the years.

[جوري]

I looked at a lot of different religions over the years.

That is precisely why they say ''Islam is a thinking man's religion'' truly captures all conquered and conqueror alike.. as I was reading today of the raid of the Mongols and thought Genghis must be rolling in his grave knowing his own offspring not only embraced Islam but out of them came the mamluks and the spread into southeast Asia..Usually the conquerors impose their beliefs on the conquered not succumb to those of the indigenous people....


:w:

[Hiroshi]

I basically studied my way out of Mormonism over 10 years ago. It took a long time for me to embrace anything else although I looked at a lot of different religions over the years.

I was a complete atheist myself at the age of 17. But I began to take an interest in JWs because my mother and my older brother had started to study with them. I was full of questions and made quite a nuisance of myself. One thing that discouraged me was that JWs seemed to be very unpopular. Everyone laughed at them. And so everyone laughed at me when I began to study and attend meetings (even my own father!). But I stuck with it. Now I believe that it was the right thing to do.

[Hiroshi]

That is precisely why they say ''Islam is a thinking man's religion'' truly captures all conquered and conqueror alike.. as I was reading today of the raid of the Mongols and thought Genghis must be rolling in his grave knowing his own offspring not only embraced Islam but out of them came the mamluks and the spread into southeast Asia..Usually the conquerors impose their beliefs on the conquered not succumb to those of the indigenous people....


:w:

The Muslims in my community take their religion and religious studies far more seriously and with much more commitment than the half-hearted church goers.

[Woodrow]

The Muslims in my community take their religion and religious studies far more seriously and with much more commitment than the half-hearted church goers.

That is very true for most Muslims every place. Perhaps we have much more incentive. All of our choices are our own responsibility and we alone accept the consequences of our sins. Nobody is going to pay the price for us, we alone are the one who needs to beg for the mercy of Allaah(swt) and strive for genuine repentance. When we die it is too late and we will pay a very horrible eternity for our unforgiven sins.

[Hiroshi]

That is very true for most Muslims every place. Perhaps we have much more incentive. All of our choices are our own responsibility and we alone accept the consequences of our sins. Nobody is going to pay the price for us, we alone are the one who needs to beg for the mercy of Allaah(swt) and strive for genuine repentance. When we die it is too late and we will pay a very horrible eternity for our unforgiven sins.

When JWs go from door to door in London where I live, we find mostly people with very little faith at all. Foreigners seem to have more knowledge and respect for the Bible than most English people. And hardly anyone believes in Adam and Eve apart from Muslims.

[Woodrow]

When JWs go from door to door in London where I live, we find mostly people with very little faith at all. Foreigners seem to have more knowledge and respect for the Bible than most English people. And hardly anyone believes in Adam and Eve apart from Muslims.

The secular world has no desire to believe that we all are Brothers and Sisters in Humanity. It is scary for some to think that their ancestors probably had different color skin.

Those thoughts are shut out, if they can believe we all do not share the same family tree.

[Rabi Mansur]

I was a complete atheist myself at the age of 17. But I began to take an interest in JWs because my mother and my older brother had started to study with them. I was full of questions and made quite a nuisance of myself. One thing that discouraged me was that JWs seemed to be very unpopular. Everyone laughed at them. And so everyone laughed at me when I began to study and attend meetings (even my own father!). But I stuck with it. Now I believe that it was the right thing to do.

I have done some study of Jehovah's Witness theology but not a lot. One of the things that kept me from wanting to study with them was my time spent learning koine Greek. When I read the JW Bible I was not convinced that they had the best translation. Some of it contradicted my Greek studies so I didn't go very far with them. They use their own Bible and that was a red flag for me.

The other thing that kept me away was my time in Japan as a missionary. Although I really admired the JWs in Japan, and they were more successful than the Mormons, I once met a lady who was a pretty staunch JW with whom I had quite an experience.

She was willing to discuss the Bible with us and listen to our point of view, and we would listen to her. As the discussion progressed I pointed out to her that if she believed in the whole Bible she had to believe that Jesus and Jehovah were the same. I used 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and Exodus 33:9. They both refer to Jehovah talking to Moses in the cloudy pillar and Paul in Corinthians notes that this was actually Christ (you may want to read the verses yourself).

That was the crack in the foundation of her belief and it wasn't long before she was baptized a Mormon.

So I was never convinced in the theology that the JWs espoused, but always did admire them.

Maybe you have an answer for the two scriptures I listed above. She didn't. It seems to undercut a basic JW belief.

:wa:

[جوري]

That was the crack in the foundation of her belief and it wasn't long before she was baptized a Mormon.

sob7an Allah akhi, if she could have met you now instead of then..


:w:

[Hiroshi]

The other thing that kept me away was my time in Japan as a missionary. Although I really admired the JWs in Japan, and they were more successful than the Mormons, I once met a lady who was a pretty staunch JW with whom I had quite an experience.

:wa:

I love Japan. Which part did you visit? I have been around Hokkaido and some parts of Honshu, particularly near Tokyo.

She was willing to discuss the Bible with us and listen to our point of view, and we would listen to her. As the discussion progressed I pointed out to her that if she believed in the whole Bible she had to believe that Jesus and Jehovah were the same. I used 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and Exodus 33:9. They both refer to Jehovah talking to Moses in the cloudy pillar and Paul in Corinthians notes that this was actually Christ (you may want to read the verses yourself).

In the Bible I have often found that an angel representing Jehovah will speak as if the angel actually is Jehovah. The one that said "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" was really an angel (Exodus 3:2; Acts 7:30). Also the one that spoke to the Israelites in the wilderness appearing in a cloud was an angel (Acts 7:38) possibly Jesus in his pre-human existence.

But 1 Corinthians 10:4 doesn't actually say that the being in the cloud was Christ. It says that the rock was Christ. While in the wilderness, the Israelites were miraculously provided with water from striking a rock on two occasions. It was as if a great rock-mass was following them, giving them water. Just as the Israelites were given water from rock so Christians receive spiritual water through Jesus. Hence the rock represented Christ. But I don't see how this would identify Jesus with Jehovah.

[Grace Seeker]

The Muslims in my community take their religion and religious studies far more seriously and with much more commitment than the half-hearted church goers.

That is very true for most Muslims every place. Perhaps we have much more incentive. All of our choices are our own responsibility and we alone accept the consequences of our sins. Nobody is going to pay the price for us, we alone are the one who needs to beg for the mercy of Allaah(swt) and strive for genuine repentance. When we die it is too late and we will pay a very horrible eternity for our unforgiven sins.

Yes. Sadly a falsehood has spread like an opiate through much of the Christian community convincing them that once one has said some sort of magic words or been washed with magic water that they need not continue to work out their salvation and live a holy life. The Bible teaches no such thing, but many churches do.

[Rabi Mansur]

:sl:

Hiroshi, I spent most of my time on Kyushu (Nagasaki, Fukuoka, etc.) and a few months in Okinawa. Nagasaki has an amazing Christian history - they crucified people who would not deny Christ. And there was a Christian underground that survived there from the time that Christianity was banned. That was my favorite city, although I really loved Okinawa.

You said:
[QUOTE]In the Bible I have often found that an angel representing Jehovah will speak as if the angel actually is Jehovah. The one that said "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" was really an angel (Exodus 3:2; Acts 7:30). Also the one that spoke to the Israelites in the wilderness appearing in a cloud was an angel (Acts 7:38) possibly Jesus in his pre-human existence.

But 1 Corinthians 10:4 doesn't actually say that the being in the cloud was Christ. It says that the rock was Christ. While in the wilderness, the Israelites were miraculously provided with water from striking a rock on two occasions. It was as if a great rock-mass was following them, giving them water. Just as the Israelites were given water from rock so Christians receive spiritual water through Jesus. Hence the rock represented Christ. But I don't see how this would identify Jesus with Jehovah./QUOTE]

Well I think we have a good example of how people of different faiths put a different interpretation on the same words of the same text. You see it differently than others. One can in good faith say that it is Jehovah speaking just as someone else can say it is Jesus in his pre-existent state speaking and someone else say it is an angel. Most mainstream Christians would say that it is Jehovah and that it supports the concept of the trinity. Mormons see it as Christ speaking and that he was the God of the OT and also Jehovah. But that he had a father (Elohim-I know it makes no sense in Hebrew). JWs obviously have a different interpretation.
The beauty of Islam is that you have the Qur'an which makes it clear that there is One God. You don't have to engage in all this uncertainty.